What eye-candy poster was pinned up on your bedroom wall when you were thirteen? A black Lamborghini Countach sprouting numerous spoilers? Farah Fawcett-Majors with blindingly-white teeth? Metallica? KISS? What I gazed lovingly upon– whilst sprawled across my bed– was a giant detailed cross-sectional drawing of a Chrysler hemi engine. Thus was the spell that the mythical engine had on me. Read More >
Automakers are justifiably proud of the fast, safe, clean and comfortable products they’ve unleashed upon the automotive market. But today’s carmakers have entered into a Faustian bargain with the electronic systems that make these four-wheeled wonders possible, and it’s busy biting them and their customers in their collective keister. Never mind the inherent safety hazards of protecting drivers from their own stupidity. The heavy reliance on technology has fundamentally altered the ownership experience, particularly when these techno-wondercars are repaired and resold.
This problem is particularly acute for high-end, mostly European luxury makes. In the past, upmarket brands justified their price premiums by offering superior performance, handling, comfort and refinement. As less-expensive brands have narrowed the gap, luxury makers have turned to electronic wizardry to create a distinctive distinction. But stuffing more stuff into the cars invites Murphy and his Law to ride shotgun.
Your humble author spent four years battling these issues as a BMW dealership technician and regularly saw Herr Murphy working his mojo. My favorite horror story of that time: a BMW E46 3-Series that was rendered impotent (warning lights aplenty, transmission stuck in second gear) by… wait for it… the radio.
The E46 radio is connected to the engine, transmission and ABS computers (and many others) by a network called the K-bus. When the radio died, it shorted out the K-bus, freaking-out the other computers. Every system that could turn on a warning light did so and the transmission computer went into ‘limp in’ mode: second gear only when in ‘Drive.’
While these sorts of gremlins may be more common in the luxury brands (Mercedes owners unite!), the same systems and problems are now appearing in more mainstream machines. Nissan owners who've put their Intelligent Key fob in the same pocket as their cell phone have discovered that the phone signal scrambles the key programming, rendering it impotent. Honda owners with a persistent ‘check engine’ light may have a major emissions system failure, or they may have slight corrosion on an electrical terminal in the fuse box. No make or model with electronic systems is immune.
Electronic failures differ from mechanical mishaps in important ways. Most mechanical items fail gradually and provide warning signs (noises, visible wear, etc.) indicating that something is amiss. Electronics are usually an either/or situation; they either work or they don’t. They also rarely warn their dependents before they fail. Mechanical systems can often be tweaked or bypassed (e.g. looping heater hoses to bypass a leaking heater core). Electronic systems usually don’t respond to duct tape and WD-40.
This electronic complexity can make for an expensive and time-consuming ownership experience. Increasingly, these systems can only be serviced by dealerships, whose technicians need a lot of (expensive) time and (expensive) training to diagnose the problems. Sometimes, the problems are so subtle that the only recourse is to install part A and see if the problem goes away.
When the owner comes back in a week with the same problem, install part B and repeat until the problem, or the owner, goes away. And make no mistake: these parts are getting mighty expensive. The aforementioned BMW radio lists for $590, and no $79 Pep Boys radio has a K-bus connection. Similarly, the days of cutting a spare key at the hardware store for $5 are long gone.
When the car is under warranty, the customer doesn’t pay the parts and labor costs, and service loaner cars might make frequent dealership visits tolerable. But imagine (or testify) what happens when the warranty ends. Electronic systems are not immune from age-related failures; the owner must bear the full brunt of these costs.
This leaves an owner with a set of tough decisions. Does he fix the problem or try to ignore it? Can he ignore it? If the transmission won’t shift out of second gear, the car isn’t very useful. Are the parts available, new or used? If only used parts are available, how long will they last? Should he just get rid of the car for something newer and/or more reliable?
That last question indicates the area where electronic overkill hurts the car owner the most. Trouble-prone cars have always had low resale values/a shortage of willing buyers. When the troubles are difficult to locate, devilish to rectify and expensive to boot, it only amplifies the situation.
Unfortunately, this is difficult to see in the available data because used car prices are affected by multiple factors. The cachet of MINI and VW, for example, keeps their resale prices high– despite their relatively poor e-reliability records.
Nevertheless, as heavily electronic cars age, the cost of repairs will overwhelm the market values of those cars. This may be the final ironic twist of modern automotive electronics: rendering eight-year-old cars about as valuable as eight-year-old computers.
Each year, automobiles kill more people than malnutrition, war and stomach cancer. That’s not including drivers and passengers. Obviously, the automobile – pedestrian toll is greatest in developing nations, where road safety is a strictly Darwinian affair. But the industrial world’s pedestrian “ksi” (killed or seriously injured) statistics are also pretty grim. Legislators in Europe, Japan and Korea have decided to take action. They’ve all developed legislative initiatives to force car makers to introduce new technology for reducing pedestrian deaths and injuries. America has no plans to get with the program. Should it?
The stats say yes. Over four thousand American pedestrians are killed in accidents with motor vehicles each year; some seventy thousand are injured. That's roughly eleven percent of all traffic fatalities. The percentage is on the rise. For obvious reasons, children and old people are the most likely to get in harms way. Children account for roughly 10 percent of all pedestrian deaths; that’s about 400 per year in the U.S. alone.
While American safety campaigners focus on law enforcement and driver training (good luck with that), the European Union has launched a technology-based campaign. By 2015, the EU demands that automakers’ products make collisions survivable when they occur between a pedestrian and a car moving at 40kph (24.9 mph). It’s a lofty goal that would save thousands of lives– that depends entirely on technology.
The EU would like to see brake assist technology as a standard feature in all vehicles. When a computer senses that a driver is using the brakes too hesitantly, the system increases brake force. Experts claim that Brake Assist decreases the number of pedestrian accidents by about five percent. They’d also like to see widespread use of radar or infrared-sensor-based collision avoidance systems. From there, the changes become more radical, and obvious.
To comply with the EU requirements, automakers are already adapting the design of their cars’ fronts— ground zero for pedestrian fatalities. Obviously, a smooth, soft front end is the way forward. That's why the styling of many European cars (e.g. Jaguar’s new XK) has already been changed, with higher, more easily deformable hoods. Much can be achieved by attention to details, within a comprehensive testing procedure.
To quell disquiet over post-accident repair, the U.K. insurance industry's Thatcham Institute recently tested various models to assess the expense of restoring deformed hoods. After a 10kph impact, they found that most SUVs incurred expensive body damage (in addition to having poor pedestrian ratings). In contrast, the Toyota (Euro-Corolla) Auris was both safer for pedestrians and relatively cheap to repair.
European automakers are already taking the next step: hoods with active safety devices that “pop up” the hood to reduce the severity of an impact with a pedestrian's head. Euro-NCAP crash tests have awarded the new Citroen C6 and Jaguar XK four out of five stars for pedestrian protection. Both models were the first to be equipped with “active hoods.” Sweden's Autoliv AB is developing hood airbags to make even inherently dangerous SUVs more pedestrian-friendly.
I recently attended the CTI Car Training Institute’s 2007 Pedestrian Protection Forum at Sindelfingen. It was quite touching to see nerdy auto engineers stand up and say things like "we have the technology, so let's get up off our backsides and do what we can to stop this killing of people.” U.S. officials were noticeably less keen.
In a phone interview, a NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) spokesman told me that America’s vehicle mix-– more trucks and SUVs— isn’t as conducive to pedestrian-friendly technology as cars in the Eurozone. NHTSA research suggests that there are unexplored trade-offs involved. “You can make a car front better for children, but then it may get worse for adults.” Why not publish pedestrian-safety ratings and let the consumer decide? “Again, we don't think you can find a one-size-fits-all solution”.
According to Prof. Florian Kramer at Germany's Dresden Technical University, those are weak arguments. “Of course it is difficult, but in constructing cars, everything is a compromise”, he says. “The point is, there is very much room for improving the pedestrian-safety of cars”. Kramer continued: “Actually, our European NCAP system was inspired by the U.S., and it's difficult to understand why the U.S. is not following up on their own idea, by including pedestrian protection.”
While American pedestrians will benefit from European action on pedestrian safety (given international trade), NHTSA’s reluctance to grasp the nettle and set standards for automakers doing business in the U.S. is likely to backfire in the long term. As was the case with fuel economy innovations, it's no good to pass the ball to foreign competitors if you lose your ability to compete technologically. And anyway: if plane crashes caused the death of 400 children each year, would legislators hesitate to enforce stricter regulations on the airline industry?
Last November, all GM’s eight U.S. brands lost ground. As the automaker’s pretty much shot its vehicular wad, the falling stats have convinced many industry observers that GM’s turnaround is back in turnaround. Of course, there isn’t a turnaround to turnaround. Not now, and not in the last forty years. Since the sixties, GM’s market share has been on a downwards trajectory. In 1962, The General owned over 52 percent of the U.S. new car market. Today, The Big 2.8 combined can’t muster a simple majority. There’s a reason for that.
GM’s inability to see the big picture has led to its downfall. The irony is stunning– the carmaker that was once the world’s largest has proven itself to be the least capable of anticipating the large scale forces controlling its destiny.
For example, how did GM fail to see that the light truck boom was about to go bust? Years before Hurricane Katrina hit, the canaries in the coalmine were singing like Ethel Merman. Gas prices aren’t cheap! Gas prices aren’t cheap! If nothing else, the fact that Toyota, Honda and Nissan were eating GM’s passenger car lunch should have signaled management that the transplants knew something about making popular products– and money– that GM didn’t.
Never mind the inadvisability of GM putting all its eggs in a body-on-frame shaped basket. GM’s success in the car business depends on its ability to see ahead of its five year model cycle– which is often longer and should be shorter but that’s another story. It’s a sad state of affairs when a company with 99 years of automaking experience and virtually unlimited financial resources can’t predict trends as well as a bunch of pistonheads yakking on the internet.
Whether it’s due to executive hubris or bureaucratic bloat or both, GM has been flying blind for decades. More to the point, they’re STILL in the dark. Saturn gets a sports car. Cadillac gets a sports sedan. Buick gets GMC’s crossover. GMC gets Buick’s crossover. Saab gets bupkis. Chevy doesn’t get Pontiac’s El Camino, while Pontiac gets Saturn’s Aura/Chevy’s Malibu. If a decision is only as good as the information it’s based on, well, garbage in, garbage out.
Even if you set aside the ongoing series of duds failing to fill GM’s sales ledger, there’s no indication of a far more important “awareness” turnaround at RenCen. At the moment, GM blames its American doldrums on the general economic climate; the “falling tide sinks all boats” excuse. This GM genuinely believes, despite the fact that domestic boats are sinking a lot faster and farther than the transplants’. But worse, far worse, they’re telling the world that the tide will raise them up by the end of next year.
As Blogging Stock points out, GM expects the key driver of their profitable pickup truck sales– the U.S. housing market– to recover in 2008. In a recent article in the New York Times, GM execs said they expected the American housing market to pick up in the second half of 2008 and that “the industry would finish that year in better shape." Try and find an independent observer who agrees that the downturn will be over in six months. Most experts agree that we’re looking at a two to three year slump. Where will THAT leave GM?
Without a pot to piss in. Say what you will about the brilliance of the new Cadillac CTS or Chevrolet Malibu or Buick Enclave. Tell me that the new Chevy Volt electric – gas plug-in hybrid is the future of automobiling as we know it. I’m not going to dismiss their prospects out of hand. But the thing of it is, at this point, they are an irrelevance. GM’s eight brand hole is so deep and so wide that no one, two, three or half dozen vehicles can fill it.
Just as GM suffered defeats on all eight brand fronts in November, their survival depends on making advances on all eight brand fronts in the future. To do that, GM has to be smarter, faster and sharper than it’s been in its entire corporate history. To think GM can pull off an octo-brand turnaround with the same management that has singularly failed to anticipate future trends, that says it's waiting for the new Energy Bill before finalizing its products plans, is even more delusional than expecting the housing market to magically right itself.
How’s this for a long term view, from a Business Week article dated May Ninth, 2005: “The only question is whether that reckoning comes in the next year, if models developed by Vice-Chairman Robert A. Lutz fall flat; in 2007, when the union contract comes up for negotiation; or perhaps in five years, when GM may have burned through its substantial cash cushion.” So really, we only have part three of the prognosis to go.
Retired Israeli Air Force ace Giora Epstein flew Mirage, Nesher and F-16 fighter aircraft during his career. When asked by the History Channel which aircraft he preferred, he replied “In the Mirage and the Nesher, the pilot flies the aircraft. In the F-16, the computer flies the aircraft and the pilot is just another input to the computer.” Modern automotive electronics have transferred Epstein’s complaint to millions of cars. We may purchase and maintain our vehicles, but we no longer truly drive them. Increasingly, we’re mere inputs for the computers that do.
This experience may be mostly transparent, but it is real. Press on the ‘gas’ pedal of an electronic-throttle car and it doesn’t open the throttle; it simply tells the engine computer the desired torque output.The brake pedal of a Toyota Prius doesn’t activate the brakes; it tells the ABS computer how much braking to supply. Turn the steering wheel in an Active Steering-equipped BMW and the direction change ranges from barely-noticeable to “Holy s***!”, depending upon what the Active Steering system decides is appropriate.
Under most circumstances, drivers don’t know or care that computers are intermediating their driving. But sometimes it does matter. Lift off an electronic throttle pedal and the computer may ignore it, holding the throttle open to reduce smog emissions. Panic brake in deep snow and ABS may threshold-brake the car into an intersection, when locked brakes might have stopped it much sooner. Try to ‘rock’ a vehicle out of slush and the traction control system may steadfastly thwart the effort.
This lack of control particularly frustrates driving enthusiasts. They want engine braking at lift-throttle, not when the computer decides they can have it. They want to take their favorite corner in a lurid tail-out slide, not electronic nannies telling them that they can’t. It’s a real killjoy when the HAL 9000 controlling the transmission rejects a downshift with an “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.” Or when the simple act of simultaneously pushing the brake and accelerator pedals sets off an electronic hissy-fit.
Even when the pocket-protector set tries to apply their dark arts for enthusiasts, they usually end up spoiling the fun. At the extreme end, Formula 1 banned electronic driver aids in the early 1990s (the ban has since been modified) because winning became more a function of software engineering than driver skill. Lower down the food chain, automakers have no qualms whatsoever about rendering their sports-oriented customers’ driving skills irrelevant.
Several high end automakers now offer transmission ‘launch control’ modes, where a driver simply selects the mode and floors the accelerator. Maximum acceleration is provided; no clutch modulation skills required. The new F430 Scuderia is equipped with F1-Trac traction control, which Ferrari test drivers admit allows ordinary drivers to nearly match their lap times around Fiorano.
Where is the pride in mastering driving skills when any Tom, Dick or Harriet can duplicate them by pushing a button? The piss-ant paradigm now extends to off-roading, where Land Rovers offer Fisher-Price type buttons that configure a vehicle’s various e-Nannies for various terrains. Hill Descent Control allows feet free operation. No muss. No fuss. No skill. No fun.
Ordinary drivers have a different interaction with all this automotive electronic wizardry. It makes them worse drivers.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that about 25 percent of all American automobile accidents are caused by distracted drivers. That’s plain to see. Cruise the freeways in any U.S. urban area. Clock how many drivers are talking on their cell phones, fiddling with their iPods, checking their navigation screens, playing with their iDrive/COMAND/MMI interfaces, or looking for the Teletubbies disc for the onboard DVD player. Their focus is everywhere but their driving.
ABS, panic brake assist and stability control can help prevent an accident, but they can’t make the car brake or steer. Only an attentive driver can do that.
Automotive electronics are also dumbing down drivers through the subtle action of moral hazard. The old anti-driver’s aids shibboleth says that cars should be equipped with sharp spikes instead of airbags, to encourage drivers to drive very carefully. Perhaps. Meanwhile, manufacturers give them an electronically expanded safety envelope. Drivers respond to this safety net by driving more aggressively. As a result, the safety benefits of technology are cancelled out by dumber driving.
Studies indicate that ABS-equipped cars have about the same accident rate as their non-ABS equivalents. Similarly, automotive forums bristle with stories about highway medians filled with flipped-over SUVs whose drivers thought 4WD was synonymous with “invincibility.”
History indicates that as drivers adapt to these new technologies, many of the problems associated with them will decline. But there are other ticking time bombs in the automotive electronic world. In our next installment, we’ll look at the long-term implications of these high-tech wonders.
In parts One and Two of this series, we looked at the websites of eight aspiring Chief Executives in an attempt to divine their positions on policies relating to automobiles. To say that our commentators considered their remarks fatuous would be like saying that a Hummer H1 would be slightly out of place at a Prius Owners Group. Still, civic duty inspires us to press on. Here’s what (the other) John, Joe, Chris and Ron have to say about alt. fuels, mpgs, etc.
Unlike every other candidate so far, the issues’ page on former naval aviator and Arizona Senator John McCain’s website doesn’t have an “energy” section. In a speech at a Bio Economy conference in Iowa, McCain came out against subsidies for big oil, ethanol and hydrogen; and promised “no mandates” for renewable fuels. Instead, McCain promised “a declaration of independence from the risk bred by our reliance on petro-dictators and our vulnerability to the troubled politics of the lands they rule” with a “national energy strategy.”
McCain says the government should set targets for “the diversification and conservation of our energy sources and conservation” and then get the Hell out of the way.
Delaware Senator Joe Biden has been in the US Senate since the dawn of time (1979). On his Energy issues page, Senator Biden promises to create a five-year, $50b “Apollo Project” for energy and climate change. He’d reduce greenhouse gas emissions by imposing a cap and trade system.
According to Senator Biden, “China alone is expected to add 120 million vehicles in the next five years,” and since “more than 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from passenger vehicles, increasing alternative fuels is critical.” Biden would raise fuel economy standards by one mpg per year, using the fiendish, industry-friendly footprint system. This slight of hand would increase fuel economy to “40 mpg by 2017.”
Senator Biden would invest $100m into research on lithium ion batteries “needed for the next generation of plug-in hybrids, which can get up to 100 miles per gallon…” He’d require that all new cars run on E85 by 2017, and force the major oil companies to sell E85. Finally, Senator Biden says he’d “provide new incentives to vehicle manufacturers and parts suppliers to retool for the future by giving them credits for “investments and employee training.”
Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd has been hanging with Joe in the Senate for five terms. Dodd’s Energy Independence page also favors a cap and trade system to “reduce 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” He’s hot for a corporate carbon tax, with the income to be put in a “trust fund” used for research into renewable technologies like “wind, solar, as well as ethanol and other biofuels.”
Senator Dodd swears he’ll “eliminate our dependence on Middle East oil by 2015.” He claims “America will lead the world in fuel economy standards,” and says all cars will get 50 mpg by 2017. As for hybrids: “Americans will purchase more efficient cars and trucks like hybrid[s] and by providing an array of incentives and tax rebates, we can speed the transition from traditional cars to much more efficient hybrid vehicles.”
Finally, to save on fuel costs and lower pollution “by reducing the number of cars on the road during rush hours,” Senator Dodd would “increase access to affordable and convenient mass transit systems” across the USA.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul is a 72-year-old medical doctor turned politician. On his Environment page, Paul says he encourages “the development of alternative and sustainable energy properties,” such as solar, fuel cell and wind, but makes no mention of cars.
On the subject of pollution, Congressman Paul says “The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters.” He says property owners should sue. “If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right.”
As for cross-border car shopping or auto manufacturing, Congressman Paul’s American Independence and Sovereignty page points out that he’s no NAFTA fan. According to Paul, “NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system.”
And there you have it. All of the candidates from all of the parties promise energy independence. All (save McCain and Paul) aren’t afraid to redeploy your tax dollars to achieve it. At the same time, none present what might be called a comprehensive energy policy, and no one seems particularly big on conservation. Given the uniformity of platitudes and policies affecting the auto industry, pistonheads would be well advised to cast their vote according to other issues.
What a difference a month makes. The euphoria created by October's U.S. sales gains ended abruptly; November numbers fell like autumn leaves. Total light vehicle sales sank 1.6 percent compared to November last year, down 3.4 percent year-to-date (YTD). U.S. light truck sales did a November nose-dive, down 6.8 percent if you include crossovers, down 15.5 percent if you don't. In this inhospitable climate, Toyota sales shot by Chevrolet for the month, leaving Ford in the dust. While Chevy should end the year in the number two slot, Ford's stuck at number three, accounting for just 13 percent of the market. And once again, The Big 2.8's combined market share fell below fifty percent. So, it was more of the same, only more so.
Passenger Cars
Chevrolet Impala sales sank 2.5 percent compared to November of 2006, tumbling below November 2005's total. On the positive side, they're cruising on the big Mo, up 11.2 percent YTD. After four consecutive months of diminishing sales, Chrysler 300 sales finally rose 6.9 percent. YTD. In the reverse of the Impala, 300 sales are down 13.1 percent YTD. The Ford Fusion made a strong showing, ending the month up a whopping 38.8 percent over last November, a 4.8 percent improvement for the year. The Toyota Camry continued its slow, steady growth, gaining 3.6 percent on the month and 6.3 percent YTD.
Pickup Trucks
Incentives or no, the collapsing U.S. housing market and the new gas price reality has whacked pickup truck sales, but good. Chevrolet's Silverado dropped 14.1 percent, down 3.3 percent YTD. The incentives king, the Dodge Ram, didn't fare quite as badly, dropping "only" 12 percent for the month. Ram sales are down 1.5 percent YTD. Ford's F-Series cash cow's still running dry. November sales were the second lowest since November 2005, down 11.7 percent. YTD, F-Series sales slumped 12.4 percent. The new Toyota Tundra racked-up a 42.2 percent increase over last November, up 58.3 percent YTD. Yes but– November Tundra sales were the lowest since April.
Truck-Based SUVs
Large SUV sales continue their slide backwards. After the best sales month in a year and a half (October), the Chevrolet Tahoe dropped 31 percent, its worst month since January of this year. Sales are down 7.7 percent YTD. The Dodge Durango had its best showing in three months, but still sank 46.3 percent on the month, 35.1 percent YTD. Ford's once-bestselling Explorer continues its seemingly endless downwards trajectory, finishing the month 18.8 percent below last year, down 23.5 percent YTD. Toyota's 4Runner dropped 17.5 percent from last November, 14.8 percent for the year.
CUVs
The Chevrolet Equinox is showing its age. Sales plummeted 32.6 percent from last November, down 21.8 percent YTD. The marked-for-death Pacifica ended the month 35.5 percent below last November's total, down 28.8 percent YTD. Ford's Escape continues to give The Blue Oval Boyz reason to live. Sales are up 22.3 percent from last year, 6.7 percent YTD. Toyota's RAV-4 dropped to its lowest level since February, but it's still 8.1 percent ahead of last November, up 15 percent YTD.
New Models
The GMC Acadia is still the Lambda king, accounting for 50 percent of the GM crossover platform's total sales. Acadia sales grew by 275 units in November. Ford Edge sales fell by 1500 units from October, but sales are still above the monthly average for the year. The Jeep Compass staunched a three-month wound, ending the month with 443 more sales than October.
Total Sales
As expected November was a cruel month for new car sales. GM 's sales were down 11 percent from last November, down 6.1 percent for the year. Thanks to fleet sales, Chrysler didn't fare quite as badly, but they're still down 2.1 percent for November, down 3.4 percent YTD. Ford had mixed results, showing a surprising 0.6 percent increase over last November. But they still have an annual deficit of 12.1 percent. Toyota finished in the black, barely– they were up from last November only 0.3 percent. They're still up 3.6 percent YTD but that number has dwindled little by little each month.
The Future
To end the year with an overall sales increases, Ford would require a major miracle. With big enough discounts, GM and Chrysler could conceivably finish on a high note– in sales if not profits. Toyota will do whatever it takes to make Tundra's sales projections, and end the year on the positive side of the sales leader. Whatever happens, there's bound to be a nasty New Year's hangover, as the carmakers either continue deep discounts or take it on the chin.
It’s doubtful that the AC-Delco engineers who devised the first electronic ignition system in 1961 envisioned the automotive revolution to follow. By then automobiles’ basic technological framework was well-established (piston engines, welded steel bodies, pneumatic tires, hydraulic brakes, etc.). Electronic ignition probably seemed like just another incremental improvement. Instead, electronics enabled quantum leaps in automotive performance, safety, comfort, efficiency and environmental impact. No other technology has been nearly so transformational.
Popular culture remembers the 1960s ‘horsepower war’ as the Golden Age of automotive performance. But twenty-first century cars with performance aspirations handily dust those Beatles-era relics. Compare the gas-guzzling smog-belching 1964 Pontiac GTO Tri-Power. We’re talking about a 280hp (SAE net) vehicle that does the quarter-mile in 14.8 seconds. Compare that to the 20+ mpg Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Mazdaspeed3. The 263hp Japanese hot hatch will do the quarter in 14.2 seconds.
How about a 1965 L78-engine Chevrolet Corvette compared to a 2006 Corvette Z06. You’re looking at 340hp vs. 505 hp, 0-60 in 5.7 vs. 3.6 seconds. No contest. We live in a fabulous age of 200hp Honda Civics, 300hp 3-Series BMWs, 400hp luxury sedans and 1000hp Bugatti Veyrons.
Even better: aside from the dangers of a lost license, modern muscle is almost consequence-free. Today’s power comes with reasonable fuel efficiency, squeaky-clean exhaust emissions, minimal maintenance and “Sure Grandma, you can borrow my car” drivability. All made possible because carburetors, distributors and mechanical linkages have been replaced by the precision dance of electronic sensors, digital computers and pulse-width-modulated solenoids.
While electronics have made engines cleaner, more reliable and increasingly powerful, the automotive safety acronym zoo (ABS, DSC, EBD, SRS, ATTESA, PSM, etc.) owes its existence to electronics. Some modern safety systems (e.g. airbags and antilock brakes) do have mechanical ancestors, but those mechanical systems were expensive, slow-acting and dubiously reliable. Reliable low-cost electronics has made those systems nearly universal in modern cars. Even the TTAC Ten Worst winning Chevrolet Aveo is graced with standard front and side airbags and optional ABS.
Strange to say, the e-ubiquity has created problems for high-end automakers. When even bargain-basement cars have state-of-the-art electronics going for them, these upscale makers need new features to justify premiums prices. Once again, electronics comes to the rescue.
The trend at the leading edge of automotive electronics: cross-system communication and integration. BMW’s rain-sensing windshield wiper system tells the ABS computer when it’s raining. The ABS computer then subtly pulses the brakes to keep the brake rotors dry. Lexus uses its adaptive cruise control system to determine if a crash is imminent. If a crash is coming, the SRS computer tightens the seatbelts and decides which airbags to deploy.
Crash a Mercedes-Benz CLK and its electronic systems automatically stop the engine, unlock the doors, turn on the emergency flashers, and provide GPS coordinates to an emergency response service. This near instantaneous safety dance would be impossible without modern electronics. The range and scope of electronic wizardry is only limited by the talent and imagination of software coders.
This electronic creeping feature-ism has also transformed the comfort and convenience of driving (or being a passenger). A plethora of entertainment and information technologies– multi-channel audio systems, on-board DVD players, GPS navigation units, OnStar, etc.– have eliminated much of the drudgery.
Even the physical effort of operating a vehicle has been minimized by electronic servants. Manually unlocking doors, manually-adjusted seats, hand-crank windows, radio tuning knobs and the like are rapidly going the way of full-size spare tire.
Approach a modern BMW while pressing ‘Unlock’ on the key fob and this modern paradigm of electronic magic goes on display. Sure, the door unlocks, but that’s just the beginning. Windows roll down. The sunroof opens. The seats, mirrors and climate control system adjust to stored settings. No need to turn the ignition lock, just stick the key in the dash slot and press the “Start” button One-touch buttons and voice recognition eliminate even the effort of changing the radio station.
Of course, this technology is mostly found on high-end cars like BMWs. But history indicates it will quickly spread to less-expensive brands. Ford has already implemented Sync voice-recognition in mass market models and Nissan’s Intelligent Key system is available throughout its model line. Wait five minutes and your personal computer gets cheaper. Wait five years and Mercedes-Benz electronics show up in your Hyundai.
This electronic dominance of our cars shows no signs of abating. Whether it’s the Toyota Prius powertrain controls, the Volvo S80 lane-departure warning system or the Chrysler Sebring’s heated cupholders, automakers keep shoveling in the wires and the microchips. They are the major reason our modern cars are so wonderful. Though not as obvious as the benefits, this electronic sophistication has drawbacks. In our next installment, we’ll see how what the boffins giveth, they also taketh away.
One of the rare examples of altruism in pistonheads concerns the (nearly extinct) American station wagon. They passionately defend the one automotive genre that the vast majority of American consumers wouldn’t be caught dead in (excepting a hearse). Why so much love for a car shape that’s been fading from the American scene for the best part of 25 years? The passion comes from recognition. The reality we’ll have to blame on Darwin and his stupid birds.
Wagons increase a car’s cargo space without altering the donor car’s fundament shape. They’re a bit heavier and generally a little shakier than their sedan siblings, but still offer car-like driving dynamics. This is important to enthusiasts, who value driving dynamics sur tout. Ironically, pistonheads hate compromises; generally speaking, they don’t buy wagons. But they recommend them to others– especially SUV owners– based on the combination of handling and hauling.
The other reason American pistonheads root for the station wagon: foreign car magazines and websites are full of them. They have them, we don’t. So they must be really good, right? Well, maybe, but first we need to have a little talk about the birds.
When Charles Darwin was hanging out down in the Galapagos, he had a thing for finches. While there were many different types of finches on the islands, Darwin figured they were all descended from a single type of bird. Responding to their environment (a.k.a. natural selection), one species had expanded into a dozen [car word now] niches.
Most foreign car markets divide cars into classes based on some combination of size and engine power. These classes are taxed at ever steeper rates as you move “up” the list. And the roads upon which they drive are narrower than our American highways and byways. This creates a demand for getting as much “bang for buck” on the smallest possible platform. Natural selection favors Eurowagonophilia.
On this side of the pond, save the gas guzzler tax and the ongoing financial penalties imposed by low mpg vehicles, the US has no size-related vehicular fees. If an American non-pistonhead wants a bit more space, there’s very little reason not to buy a SUV/CUV/Minivan. The price difference between a “normal” size (two-row) station wagon and a small “box” vehicle is minimal.
The old rear-drive (three-row, with a penalty box) wagon has no advantage on a minivan/big CUV other than cornering. And who buys a people-hauler for that? This also explains why “small” three-row haulers (MPV/Villager, the old Odyssey, Tribeca) have such low sales; there isn’t enough price “room” for them to compete with the big boys.
It’s not that manufacturers haven't tried– and tried again– to sell station wagons. Fifteen years ago, the first car Honda designed in the USA was the Accord Wagon. For years, it was the most-exported American-built car. Back in Ohio, the most common sales drivers for the Honda wagon were transplanted Japanese employees encouraged to “drive local.” When the Accord design was split into USA and “rest of the world,” the Acura TL was brought to the states and the wagon was kept small and built overseas.
If this seems like the destruction of a tradition, it really isn’t. The “classic” large American wagon was a fairly recent development, dating from the “new” car designs of the late 1940s. Earlier “station wagons” looked a lot like modern SUV/CUVs. The Chevy Suburban was called a “station wagon” at its introduction.
Right from the beginning, these new wagons were criticized for their lack of utility. The classic 1960 book “Insolent Chariots” not only criticized contemporary vehicles for being all flash, it also ripped station wagons for being useless for camping and other duties (he wanted a Jeep, before Jeeps were that big). While VW buses, International Scouts, and “custom” vans cut into the “utility” market for the next 20 years, it was the minivan that killed the large wagon segment.
The “secret” to the minivan was packaging. By using a “car-like” uni-body and transverse engine, minivans could haul like a wagon on a much smaller platform and offer genuine rear seats to boot. If you still needed to tow, there were always an SUV. As gas stayed cheap through the mid ‘80’s into the ‘90’s, more people moved into the “safer” (and much more commodious) SUVs and the new uni-body CUVs. The wagon had been well and truly “niched.”
Is the wagon due for an American revival? Doubtful. There’s always demand for a more space-efficient car– especially if utility not performance is the major selling point. Subaru and Volvo still sell a lot of wagons, but they are not in the heart of the market. The heart of the market either wants a car to drive or something to haul stuff. They don’t like to pay extra to do neither as well.
If there’s any doubt that the ’57 Chevy is THE iconic American car, it’s been erased. Long the favorite with the hot rod and collector crowd, the classic Chevy has now attained automotive immortality: they’re making new ones again from scratch. For $180k, you can buy a brand new 1957 Bel Air Convertible assembled from reproduction parts. The story of how the ’57 Chevy (and its ’55 – ’56 predecessors) became a living legend is worth repeating, since it includes some lessons still relevant today. Read More >
They want your vote, but they drive you crazy. More specifically, passionate posting pistonheads don’t seem well pleased with America’s current crop of presidential aspirants. Part One of this series examined four presidential candidates’ websites to winkle out their auto-related policies on issues ranging from Corporate Average Fuel Economy to E85 to “oil addiction” and, uh, back. Judging from your comments on Hillary, Barack, Rudy and Mitt’s plans, you were about as impressed as pyromaniacs at a swim meet. So, in that spirit of world-weary cynical analysis, let’s have a look at what Fred, Mike, John and Bill have to say about all things automotive.
Fred Thompson is the son of what he calls a “little educated” used car dealer. If that doesn’t raise any alarm bells, Fred’s also an attorney, Red October hunter, fictional prosecutor and former US Senator (for real) from the great state of Tennessee.
An “Issues” page on Thompson’s site includes an “Energy Security” section. Within, Thompson declares that our “dependence on foreign sources of oil threatens our national security and puts our economic prosperity at risk.” He offers the usual list of tasks required to overcome our “oil addiction:” increase domestic oil supplies, invest in alt. fuels, etc.
In an August press release titled “The Gas Tax,” Senator Thompson mentions the tragic highway bridge collapse in Minneapolis MN and adds: “Whoa now. Let’s hold our horses and think about calls for new [federal] tax increases to fix our infrastructure problems…we can’t let it [the bridge collapse] be used to compound other problems— which is what will happen if we’re scared into raising gas taxes.”
Senator Thompson says local governments, not the feds, should deal with such issues. “Why can’t we leave infrastructure issues to the people closest to where the rubber literally hits the road?” (Geddit?) Policy stands regarding cars, US automakers or specifics on energy issues? No comment.
The former Governor of Arkansas known as Mike Huckabee also has an Issues page. In his “Energy Independence” sub-page, the Gov says “The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term.” Two terms and we’re free! How’s that then?
“We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass (ethanol subsidies are go).” Huckabee will “set aside a federal research and development budget” that would be “matched by the private sector” to find new energy such as alternative fuels. And then… “Our free market will sort out what makes the most sense economically and will reward consumer preferences.”
John Edwards is the infamously mansion-dwelling former US Senator from North Carolina. His “Issues – A New Energy Economy” page sings a familiar tune: “Our generation must be the one that says 'yes' to alternative, renewable fuels and ends forever our dependence on foreign oil.”
Senator Edwards would create a “New Energy Economy Fund” to support R&D, invest in efficient automobile technology and help Americans conserve. He’d also “repeal subsidies to big oil companies and require oil companies to install biofuel pumps at 25 percent of their gas stations.” Senator Edwards would require all new cars sold after 2010 to be ‘flex fuel’ cars.
While in Iowa, Senator Edwards praised “biofuels innovators” and announced he’d “accelerate the use of biofuels on America’s roads and highways…” That’s cause he “believes that everyone should be able to drive the car, truck or SUV of their choice and still enjoy high fuel economy.” To that end, Edwards would raise federal fuel economy standards to 40 mpg by 2016.
Bill Richardson is a former Congressman, US Ambassador to the United Nations (under Bill Clinton) and the current Governor of New Mexico. His Issues / Energy page calls for a “New American Revolution– an energy and climate revolution.” His vision would see oil imports reduced “from around 65 percent to 10 or 15 percent.”
Governor Richardson says “getting the 100 mile per gallon (mpg) car into the marketplace” is key, and hey, why not double current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards to “50 mpg by 2020?"
While he’s at it, Richardson would also like to see renewable energy resources increase to 50 percent by 2040: “This is aggressive, but necessary as we start using more electricity for automobiles.” To help pay the bills, he’d raise “some revenue from the sales of carbon permits” and “get out the ‘green scissors’ to cut back on wrongly-placed tax subsidies.”
Richardson would like to see the US become “energy independent and combat global warming” because— yes, you guessed it– our “national security and our planet depend on it.” Seems like a theme, or, if you prefer, just another par-for-the-course sop to environmentalists and consumers fearing higher gas prices and foreign entanglements.
This is my first General Motors pre-obituary. I’ve never penned one because I never liked having to face the reality that GM's killing itself one bone-headed decision at a time. But in carmaking as in any type of proto-warfare, turning a blind eye to stupid mistakes doesn’t make things any better. In the past few weeks, GM has made three product announcements that are so head-shakingly absurd they’ve earned themselves the starring role in a GM Deathwatch. Strike one…
GM has announced that it will be importing the Holden Ute– a modern day Chevrolet El Camino– to the U.S. The Ute’s based on the same Zeta platform underpinning the upcoming Pontiac G8, which has already been fully developed for the Australian market (where such vehicles are tremendously popular).
On the face of it, this is excellent news. Without even having driven the new Holden Commodore/Pontiac G8, you can count on it being an excellent sport-sedan. A modern rear wheel-drive platform, powerful V6 and V8 engines, up-to-date transmissions and strong prices all add up to a winning combination. A cute UTE would be icing on the proverbial cake.
Unfortunately, GM is going to sell this pickupish vehicle as a Pontiac. GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz addressed this issue squarely between the [cross] eyes. “If we do the Ute…it could be the most enthusiast-positive decision to bring back the El Camino. But you look at their lineup and Chevy has too many vehicles.” Er, no. Chevy has too many poor selling vehicles. Although I can hear more “American Revolution” snickering, and I’m sure the Holden Ute holds plenty of hoon potential (light back ends making drifting even easier), the imported Aussie flatbed should be a Chevy. We build excitement. Pickup. No.
Strike two…
When the idea of importing a Holden sedan as a new Pontiac was first mooted, GM acknowledge the profit-busting exchange rate problems involved and said they’d be building the new G8 here if it sold well, as soon as possible. Back in February, MaxiBob told Automotive News that bringing over the G8 was a “transitional phase. It permitted us to get the car quickly and for a minimum of investment.” The unions (then in contract negotiations) breathed a sigh of relief as Lutz assured “It’s highly likely we will begin to produce [the Zeta-platformed Pontiacs] in North America.”
Fair dinkum. Let's get the first ever G8 into the American market ASAP. This week “probably will” became “probably won’t.” Gary Cowger, GM Vice-President of Global Manufacturing and Labor Relations, said there are “no plans at this point” to move production to North America. This despite GM’s excess plant capacity in the U.S. and Canada, which will build the Zeta-based Chevrolet Camaro.
Building the G8 in the States is the right thing to do. Holden Australia will have no problem recouping its manufacturing investment in sales to Australia, New Zealand, the Middle East, and China. The benefit to building Pontiac G8s in NA? GM doesn’t run the risk of slim profits or red ink losses as the American currency slides further down in value. Oh, and there’s the little matter of not pissing-off the UAW that GM just somehow persuaded to not revolt (yet).
But let’s give Mr. Lutz the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps when he was talking about adding U.S. production for “global rear-drive architecture” he really meant ANY rear-drive platform– not necessarily Zeta. Because hey, GM has announced that it has another, smaller rear-drive platform, this one called “Alpha" (rear wheel-drive from Z to A). Small, cheap, lightweight, rear wheel drive? It’s music to my ears.
Strike three… the music turns to noise.
The first two brands that receive Alpha cars are the worst two choices in GM’s stable. One is Cadillac, which we’ve already carpet-bombed for deciding to erode its image with an even cheaper car than the CTS. But the news of the week: the second company to get the Alpha platform would be… Chevrolet.
Last week Motor Trend “revealed” that Chevy, not Pontiac, would get an Alpha car. Since that’s totally schizophrenic (didn’t Lutz say Chevy “has too many vehicles”?), a GM fan fired off an email. Lutz allegedly responded that the Motor Trend claim was "Totally untrue. Don't believe everything you read on the internet! Valuable advice! Even in politics…or esecially! [sic]."
Note to Bob: Motor Trend blew the story. The internet is how you’re setting the record straight. Anyway, I’m not buying it. By thy duds they shall be know. Clearly, the Car Czar has no clear idea of which GM brand should get what and why. While rear-wheel drive is an enthusiast’s dream, unless GM sorts out its “global” production plans and domestic branding, great products will only go so far. In fact, not far enough.
“Wooden Shoe Rather Be Dutch?” Sigh. Bumper sticker humor aside, the Subaru Legacy had 140k miles on the clock and a well-maintained powertrain (records in the glovebox). The hardback book about Abraham Lincoln under the driver’s seat gave me hope that the owner was equally conservative with his driving. After a bit of tire kicking, I slowly concluded that the old girl had plenty of life left. Fortunately, the kicked-in driver’s door and smelly interior made the other dealers turn-up their nose when the Subie went across the block. For $500, the Legacy became mine… all mine. BWAHAHAHHA!!!!
Welcome to the wonderful world of the $500 car. From public auctions to impound lots to private sales and eBay, they’re there for the taking. We’re talking old Fords that hardly ever fail, to mondo mileage minivans with the interiors to match. The cost of today’s ‘affordable’ commuter has rapidly sunk to the point where it’s nearly equal to the price of a new scooter. Even better, as the old saying goes, “They ain’t building em’ like they used too.” They’re building them better.
Thanks to huge advances in mechanical engineering, materials and manufacturing, the average vehicle has a remarkable ability to sustain itself well in six figures on the clock and double decades on the calendar– given the right owner and proper maintenance.
In my daily work as a dealer, I see the results of this every day: old Camrys old enough to drink in all fifty states that run as well as a twenty-year-old sewing machine; old Volvo wagons that you can’t kill with a stick, SUVs built for durability instead of bling that can still climb every mountain, conventional family sedans that have watched an entire generation grow up and head off to college, ready for grandchild duty.
For a true indication of the average car’s added endurance, look no further than Canada. Our neighbors in the Great White North recently reported that the number of 15-year-old vehicles on their roads had skyrocketed from just 800k in 1990 to 2.8m today. They’re not hanging onto to their vehicles longer because they’re poor. They’re doing it because they can. And the money saved is phenomenal. But the $500 car? How can that be a good deal?
First of all, understand this: the $500 car always has something wrong with it. Examples: the Subaru had a foul odor and a severely dented door. A $100 door and a $50 detail brought it back to its rightful glory. A 1989 Toyota Camry and a 1993 Eagle Vision I bought for $500 apiece needed nothing more than a $190 paint job (called a “scuff and shoot”). Two 1989 Volvo 240 Wagons, a 1988 Isuzu Trooper and a 1991 Ford Explorer Sport needed… well… nothing actually. They were just unpopular and ‘old’. Finally, a 1977 Mercedes 350SE bought for $250 needed a/c, new tires, and an alignment.
That old Merc was a freakish, right place/right time deal. But all the others had dozens of eyes on them and nary an interested buyer in sight. But why did all these sell so cheaply? Most car shoppers (and dealers) judge a book by its cover. Fashion rules. A damaged door or other body panel, peeling paint or lack of functional air conditioning stops most buyers in their tracks.
In time though, most folks pretty much just treat their cars as appliances. If it breaks a little bit, but it still works, they figure why bother even fixing it? Car buyers prefer to trade-in or sell their problems instead of fixing them, predominantly because they believe the repair cost is simply too much to bear.
That’s where the challenge and opportunity lies. Paint is cheap, parts at the local recycling yard (check car-part.com) or parts store are a fraction of dealer prices, and the time spent calling a few shops to get a direct quote for the labor on a specific repair costs you absolutely nothing. Enthusiast sites for specific cars are great at telling you the weak spots of any particular model, and what to look for during the test drive. Again this costs nothing but time and the willingness to learn.
For those of us who buy for the long haul, or just want a good cheap car to play with for a while, my advice is to look at the ‘scratch and dent’ side of the market. There are a lot of cheap old cars out there that had owners who did the maintenance, but not the cosmetics or the seemingly big repair. A little homework and a good independent mechanic can truly give you a ‘keeper’. It will also stave off the five figured financial scourges of depreciation, higher ad valorem taxes, and insurance while keeping your car hobby affordable and fun.
With the US presidential caucuses and primaries scheduled to begin within a month, pistonheads may be wondering what the contenders have to say on the subject of cars. To gain some insight into their positions on issues automotive, I visited the candidate’s websites to see what, if anything, they have to offer those of us who love cars. Of course, the candidates public posturing should be taken with a large dose of skepticism; getting nominated and elected is most certainly Job One. In addition, future Congresses (and highly-paid lobbyists) will continue to hold sway over US policy. Still, to quote Thomas Jefferson: "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government…”
To begin this series, we’ll start with four candidates– two from each of the major political parties– Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Governor Mitt Romney. Here then, as best can be discerned from their respective websites, are the automotive-related public policy positions of our first four subjects.
Hillary Clinton’s website presents an “Energy Independence and Global Warming” position paper. In this highly readable document, Hillary promises that she’d create a $50b “Strategic Energy Fund” to pay for alternative energy “investments.” At least in part, oil companies would fund the fund. And guess who else? Senator Clinton also proposes increasing auto fuel efficiency standards to “55 miles per gallon by 2030.”
Finally, Senator Clinton would issue $20b worth of “Green Vehicle Bonds” to help US automakers “retool their plants” to meet the 55 mpg Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards she currently proposes.
Barack Obama offers a lengthy tome entitled “Meeting Energy Needs.” A few car-related highlights: Senator Obama claims he has “concrete plans” plans to double fuel economy standards within 18 years [but offers few specifics]. He would “protect the financial future of domestic automakers” by providing them with some “flexibility” to meet those doubled targets.
Like Senator Clinton, Senator Obama would also help domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers “retool” to meet the standards by offering tax credits and loan guarantees. Senator Obama would also expand the consumer tax credits on hybrid purchases and he’d “mandate” that all new cars sold in the US be flexible-fuel vehicles.
Rudy Giuliani offers an “Issues” page, which covers subjects ranging from fiscal discipline to the second amendment (the right to bear arms). Rudy’s position on the auto industry, CAFE, emissions, the Big 2.8, etc.? Not a word.
However, the former New York City Mayor’s blog page offers an entry chronicling a speech given during a visit to Sioux City, IA in July. “Mayor Rudy Giuliani promised that, as President, he would expand nuclear power and renewable fuels like ethanol and call for more clean coal technologies, more clean-burning natural gas, environmentally safe drilling for oil and natural gas in North America and new technologies like hybrid cars and hydrogen fuel cells.
Rudy also promises to lead America to “energy independence.” No specifics offered. Oh, and Mayor Giuliani was the Grand Marshal at the NASCAR Pepsi 400 at the Daytona Raceway back in July. How great is that?
Mitt Romney has an Issues page with a section titled: “Ending Energy Dependence.” Former Massachusetts Governor Romney also says the US must become energy independent. In a section of his site titled “The Romney Plan,” we find this quote: "I want to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative – an Energy Revolution, if you will. It will be our generation’s equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the Moon.” What about auto fuel efficiency, or the auto industry? Not a word.
While Governor Romney does not specifically call out the Asian auto industry when talking about economic competitors of the US, he offers this tidbit. "[W]e face a much tougher competitor or group of competitors coming from Asia than we've ever faced before. Asia is tough. There are a lot of Asians. They are hard working people. And they’re going to give us a run for our money in terms of our economic vitality."
On the subject of building and repairing transportation systems in the US, Romney would like to “invest in infrastructure projects critical to the national economy and its flow of goods and people, instead of funding home-district pork.” Good luck with that, Gov!
Again and as expected, the candidates are not about to get bogged down in specifics when it comes to, well, anything– especially when you’re looking at a subject with conflicting political implications: save our planet, free us from “oil addiction,” build mass transit systems (preferably for someone else), subsidize my damn corn field and keep the price of cars and gas low thank you very much. Still, when it comes to voting for president, “don’t ask don’t tell” is the worst of all possible policies.
It’s a never-ending battle between speeders and the police. Since the e-wars began, the police have moved from simple X-Band radar-based speed detectors to sophisticated KA-band radar guns, radar detector detectors (no really) and laser speed detection devices (with charming names like Stalker LZ-1). While the best consumer radar detectors can sniff out X and KA-band signals from a long way off—before the signal can bounce back to Officer Not So Friendly—if your laser beam detector goes off, tag, you’re it. If you’re speeding (which you probably do as you’re reading a laser jammer review), you’ve been nabbed.
FYI, police speed detection lasers or LIDAR (LIght Detection And Ranging) fires light pulses at an object at about 984 million feet per second or roughly 1 foot per nanosecond. The pulses bounce off the (theoretically) offending vehicle and return to the laser device. Its optical sensors receive the returning photons or waves (let’s not get into THAT debate), compares outgoing and returning light (in about a third of a second) and calculates the object’s speed.
“Normal” radar guns send out a relatively wide beam of radio waves and use Christian Doppler’s observed effect to ascertain the fastest vehicle within that beam. Laser guns are far more accurate; at a thousand feet, the laser “cone” is roughly 3 feet in diameter.
Luckily (for you), laser guns have drawbacks. First, they’re a fair weather device; laser beams abhor a rainstorm. Second, unlike KA-Band radar, a laser gun must be stationary and aimed directly at the [theoretical] speeder. This eliminates in-car mobile use. On the positive side (for them), laser is ideal for roadside speed detection. The tickets practically write themselves.
Other than buying a low-slung black car and covering it with high tech non-reflective materials, there’s only way to defeat a laser speed detector: active jamming. We’re talking about a device that reacts to a police laser beam by sending out its own laser beam, shifting the spectrum of the returning light, rendering it unrecognizable to the laser gun’s optical sensors. Yes, it’s a high tech shoot-out at the photon coral.
A quick note about legality . . .
The Federal Communications Commission prohibits civilian use of police frequencies; sending out a signal on these frequencies to mess with a police radar gun is a HUGE no-no. Banning civilians from using a part of God’s own light spectrum is a lot more problematic. That said, the Food and Drug Administration regulates laser devices—from a personal safety rather than a road safety perspective. Nebraska, Minnesota, Utah, California, Oklahoma, Virginia, Colorado, Illinois and Washington DC are the only states/district that bans the use of radar detectors AND laser jammers for “interfering with police business.”
I tested the Escort Laser Shifter ZR3, an active laser jammer that can be used as a standalone solution or in conjunction with Escort’s high end 8500 and 9500 radar/laser detectors. The Laser Shifter ZR3 comes complete with a comprehensive owner’s manual, installation instructions, two front laser transceivers, one rear laser transceiver, in-car display controller, remote mute button, 12-volt interface with modular connections, complete wiring harnesses, mounting hardware and a link cable for connecting to the Passport 8500, 7500S and SR7, and the Solo2.
The kit requires lots of wiring and drilling; professional installation is a must. The test car spent the entire day at a local installer, who hid the front transceivers in the front grill, and the rear transceiver on the top of the license plate frame. The finished job cost $250.
I coupled the Escort ZR3 with an Escort 8500i and ran a few real world tests at known speed traps.
On each pass, the Passport 8500’s laser detector noted the laser presence and instantly activated the jammer. The confused look on the officer’s face as I drove by [probably] confirmed that the laser jammer [probably] prevented his laser gun from registering our speed, which may have been approximately 15mph over the 35mph limit.
The results lend credence to the video hosted on youtube. This test shows the ZR3’s jamming capability against a Prolaser II Police Lidar Gun, from the police perspective trials at radartest.com who found that the Escort ZR3 was nearly perfect—providing a 99% efficiency rating. The ZR3 an excellent investment to reduce exposure from laser based tickets. Coupled with an Escort radar detector, a user will have a one device system covering all potential radar detection systems.
The Escort ZR3 costs $499. Given the cost of speeding tickets, points and insurance increases, anyone with a lead foot whose local police use laser guns will find it a worthwhile investment. That said, the new and [thankfully] rare Laser Atlanta Type S in [thankfully rarely used] Stealth Mode defeats the Escort ZR3. Yes, the battle between poachers and the gamekeeper continues.
Recent Comments