Oy, so many to choose from. There was that time just after high school where we drove from Los Angeles to San Francisco and then turned around and drove back. Probably drug related but who can remember that far back? Or there was the time we went from Seattle to Los Angeles (that same summer) in 22 hours. Maybe that doesn’t sound impressive, but the Chevy S10 couldn’t go much over 60 mph. Or there was the time we went from Sonoma County to Malibu in a 1961 Buick in 3 hours 45 minutes. Yes, that’s about 450 miles. And no, I have no clue how fast we were going because the speedo only went to 85 mph. But we did have to stop three times for gas. Pedal to metal, etc. Though, I’m thinking this Xmas might be my nuttiest drive. Because I’m flying back from Philly to LA, jumping in the WRX and driving straight through the night to Willows, CA for Arse-Freeze-Apalooza, the latest iteration of the 24 Hours of LeMons. That’s about nine hours of driving And if my calculations are correct, I get to start judging the cheatin’ bastids about 1 hour after I arrive. Joy. You?
Category: Question of the Day
Greetings from Pennsylvania! That’s right, I’ve left the warm (enough) confines of Southern California and journeyed east to meet the fiancee’s parents. It’s going fantastic, thanks for asking. Only thing is, they aren’t exactly what I’d call “car people.” Well, my future father in law’s OK enough. 2002 Jetta with a stick. Not a GLI with the VR6 but salty. Decent. Respectable. Her stepmother, however… Picture it: downtown Philadelphia, six people in the car. Me at the wheel because, “You drive cars (hic) for a living — you drive!” And after half a mile everyone starts noticing how poorly the car is riding. “These old streets are lousy in the winter.” Then it gets worse. “Well,” I say, “The Chevy Venture is one of the reasons why GM is circling the drain.” And when I park — yup — it’s a flat tire. And it’s 26 degrees out. And windy. And it takes 20 minutes to get the jack unstuck. So now there’s a mini-spare donut on the right front corner and the dash reads “AWD Disable.” But, we make it back, no sweat. The next morning (today!) we need to be in Quakertown and it’s 14 degrees and icy and the one tire shop has a “two hour plus” wait. We need to go, so we schlep 40 frosty miles in a hobbled minivan on one pretty alright tire. We live, but not my finest automotive hour. You?
Or the best, if you’re into the whole “half full” thing. And there’s no shortages of possible answers. Honda has dumped F1, but Toyota hasn’t. Subaru and Suzuki are dumping the WRC, but Chrysler‘s just “throttling back” (the technical term) its NASCAR involvement. Incidentally, NASCAR just settled a lawsuit for $225m involving “23 specific incidents of sexual harassment and 34 specific incidents of racial and gender discrimination.” And then there’s Ferrari, who is staying in F1 but at the staggering price of a Tata Motors sponsorship. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for Tata to field the first-ever factory LeMons team. There may well be more storylines that I’m missing, but the trend is clear. Thanks to the economic downturn, motorsports aren’t the priority they used to be in terms of brand building. Or are they? Or did they even matter much in the first place?
Like our friends up in the RenCen citadel, New York State has been taking in less than it spends. In a big way. In fact, The Empire State has racked-up a $15.4b deficit. A fact that somehow didn’t make it into The New York Times story on Governor Paterson’s plans to drain $9b from Albany’s pig trough and tax the beJesus out of anything that moves or breathes within his state’s boundaries. We’re talking 137 new or increased taxes and fees. And guess who takes it on the metaphorical chin? iPod users! Not to mention… “The tax on car rentals would rise to 6 percent from 5 percent… Taxes on gasoline, cable and satellite TV service, cigars and flavored malt beverages would also go up. And the cost of owning and operating a car would rise significantly, with 16 fee increases.” Including (but not mentioned in the article) a five percent tax on any vehicle that sells for over $60k. TTAC’s UK readers will roll their eyes at any idea that NY drivers will crumble under the yoke of such a puny extra burden, but it looks like a slippery slope to me.
Ah ha ha ha — I’m still having a ball. I love these X vs. Y QOTDs. Maybe it’s time for a new feature? Hmmm… Anyhow, there are a lot of people (er, were a lot of people) that purchase two-door sports coupes. So many in fact that Nissan’s on their 6th iteration of the Z and Ford’s Mustang is older than most people. Last week through, uh, fate, I was able to drive the 2010 versions of each car (Mustang review here ,370Z here). And as different as they are, man, are they the same. The Z makes do with “just” six cylinders yet weighs about 200 pounds less than the more powerful V8 ‘Stang. Therefore performance is nearly identical. In fact, so close that it just doesn’t matter. But surely the IRS Nissan has the edge over the live axle Mustang in the handling department, right? The 370Z might be able to provide flashier numbers on a skid pad, but on the street? The two cars feel equally capable. Looks? Take your pick — both cars are muscular, handsome, loaded with retro cues yet modern. Hamburger vs. Sushi? Depends on my mood — one has no inherent advantage over the other. 5-speed vs. 6-speed? I prefer 4-speeds. Interiors? Both are good, not great. So, how then? Here’s the thing — Nissan swore up and down that when they were developing the 370Z they didn’t bother to benchmark the Mustang. Porsche Cayman? Yes. BMW Z4? Yes. Audi TT? Yes. But while they were playing footsies with the Germans, Ford went ahead and developed the Bullitt, one of the greatest cars of the last 10 years. And the 2010 Mustang GT is a better Bullitt. So yeah, Mustang for me. You?
Yesterday was fun. For me at least. Seriously, as someone who thinks about cars all the live long day it is always fascinating to get inside other peoples’ heads and see how they perceive those lovable hunks of steel, cloth and plastic. So, doing Crown Vic vs. Camry was actually interesting and informative, not just petty and vindictive. Today we’re going to focus on two other cars that don’t interest me in the slightest. The first is the very worst new car I’ve ever driven and the second is by far and away the most boring. I ain’t kidding around here people — when Chrysler’s obituary is written, the Sebring should take center stage. Remember, it’s the car they released after the smash success of the 300C. Sad times. But at least the Sebring has a (optional) motor with some guts. The Corolla is like driving chloroform. Snore says I, big time snore. And so if I was forced to choose, I’d actually pick the Chrysler. While holding my nose, of course. You?
So, we know Ford’s Alan Mullaly is driving from Detroit to DC in an Escape Hybrid, and GM’s Rick Wagoner is pushing a Malibu Hybrid from Motown and exchanging it for a Cruze/Volt mule to drive (carefully!) the final two miles to the capitol. We even know that UAW Boss Ron Gettelfinger will be *gasp* flying to the hearings, thanks to the fine reporting at Jalopnik. Then again, Gettelfinger had concession-scrounging duty today while the executives and their symbolic vehicles are frantically prepped for their big day at the Capitol. Only Chrysler’s Bob Nardelli has yet to publicize his vehicle of choice, and I’m wondering what the hell he’s gonna show up in. As Fox points out, if he takes the easy route and rolls up in a Hybrid Durango or Aspen, he’ll be “riding a dead horse to Washington.” Chrysler canceled its only hybrids a short week after launching them this October, and will be shutting down the factory that made them this month. Then there’s the famous EV vaporware that Chrysler pulled out of nowhere, but the risk of national humiliation is a big load for these unproven vehicles to carry. So what, a Sebring and a prayer? If I were him I’d be tempted to say “NSFW it” and show up in a black Challenger R/T. Preferrably modified in such a way that violates as many emissions and noise regulations as possible. That would show them who’s begging. So what’s your guess?
We gave Bond actor Daniel Craig a pass when he turned down the free Aston Martin of his choice as a perk for his silver screen Aston pimping. After all, London is one of the least driver-friendly city in the developed world, and as Craig put it “I live in London and it doesn’t make sense to drive an Aston Martin there. I’ve nowhere to park it.” And we bought his line, citing our own Adrian Imonti’s maxim that “driving in London just for fun is as sensible as rollerblading on the autobahn.” But, while we were defending Craig from the editorial assault of no less an authority than Pistonheads, 007 apparently went off the reservation and placed an order for a new Lotus Evora (while Aston burns). According to eGMCartech, Daniel Craig has joined half the celebrities on earth who are getting in line for the mid-engined 2+2. Other takers? London Mayor (and congestion charge slayer) Boris Johnson, Top Gear UK presenters Richard Hammond and James May, Craig;s Bond predecessor Pierce Brosnan, Jay Leno, Jamiroquai’s Jay Kay, supermodel Jodie Kidd, Beyoncé Knowles, Dave Grőhl, Kelly Rowland, George Clooney, Kevin Spacey, Patrick Dempsey and J-Lo. So this is clearly the “it” car of 2009, and apparently parking in London isn’t as big a deal as we thought. But wouldn’t you rather have an Aston for free?
In a post I wrote today for Autofiends, I mentioned that I am so tired of hearing a car described as “handling like it’s on rails.” In part, it’s often because the people that use this term have no idea what they’re talking about, or in other cases are just wrong. Very, very few cars are level in turns and have enough grip to have no under or oversteer in moderate-speed driving. Still, the term is out there, and I’ve heard it (ab)used to describe everything from a Dodge Challenger to an E39 BMW 528i to the Mitsubishi Lancer. My runners up include: dubs, bling, concerns about a regular street car’s top speed, and “car guys.” When it comes to automotive journalism – or just chatting with people that really swear they are “gearheads” – what gives you the red ass?
As thing stand now, All three automakers will present plans for reorganization to the congress by December second. Five days later, Detroit’s caravan of love will kick off its pilgrimage to Washington, where the three CEOs will hold an encore performance of their famed congressional testimony. The reception that awaits them in our nation’s capitol will depend largely on how candid the second round of testimony is, and how viable the new reorganization plans are. Now that everyone is well aware of the fact that they are screwed, Rick, Bob and Alan must convince congress that they can dig their way out. Since GM claims to already have “a plan,” lets take a moment today to speculate on what that plan is… or should be. My feeling is that Wagoner’s credibility is so weak that he has to open with a structured bankruptcy offer to avoid being laughed out of the hearing room. If he agrees that brand and dealer cuts are necessary, GM just might get the bailout. Given his pathological performance thus far though, I’d guess Wagoner’s pride (wait, that’s not the right word) won’t let him. He’ll probably talk up the cuts to truck manufacturing, hype the Cruze and Volt and suggest that maybe the union might give some ground soon. And he’ll jet home empty-handed to start Chapter 11 proceedings. Your thoughts?
Chris Kelly at the Huffington Post brings up a good point this morning. Chrysler is just one of more than fifty companies in the corporate Hades that is Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. They don’t have to bark publicly about their holdings, but have admitted to $25 billion under management in funds and accounts, with investments generating more than $60 billion in annual revenues worldwide. So why can’t one head of the beast help out another? Why can’t the dog ditch their Japanese bank, Aozora; their German bank, Handel und Kredit Bankhaus; a reinsurance company, Scottish Re, some of their seven TV stations or slice of their 65,000 apartments in Berlin? If their 250 Burger Kings were going under would Congress be rushing to save them? Why is Cerberus begging the Feds for scraps like some underweight cocker spaniel, when they’ve got so many bones buried out back?
On second thought, that’s a silly question. Why are we allowing it? Now that’s a question.
The year was 1948 and well, Tucker happened. There are many sides to Preston Tucker’s story. One is essentially what Francis Ford Coppola portrayed in his biopic, Tucker: The Man and his Dream, where a man with a better idea is prevented from fairly competing by the two-headed serpent of Washington and big business. The flip side is that Mr. Tucker was a scam artist that conned would-be stock holders out of $15m by selling them accessories for a product that didn’t exist. He was indicted for fraud, you know. But what really sank Tucker? Ironically, it was the “Tuckermatic” transmission. Most likely because of his racing background, Preston Tucker stuck a helicopter engine in the back of the Tucker Torpedo. Initially air-cooled, the flat-six produced a whopping 372 lb-ft of torque. Enough torque to rip the guts out of most transmissions in 1948. Tucker decided to address the problem with his Tuckermatic, a slushbox that sported only 27 moving parts– 90 less than conventional cog swappers. Only he never bothered to put a reverse gear in the prototype tranny. The press not only had a field day writing about “the car that couldn’t backup.” The Tucker brand lost much of its luster. Sure, he eventually threw a Cord automatic into his Torpedo. But the damage was done. Despite building 51 prototypes, many alleged that P. Tucker either never intended to mass produce the cars or that he was in so deep with on the development end of things he never got around to buying the necessary machines and tools to fire-up an assembly line. Any of this sound, well, shockingly similar to what’s going on at Tesla? While the details are obviously different (Washington and Detroit getting anything accomplished? Ha ha ha ha ha) the large strokes are, well… Promise one transmission, deliver another that prevents the car from achieving its advertised performance potential. Claim that development mules are actually production cars. Collect large amounts of money from investors only to play fast and loose with the books. Tucker and his six co-defendants were eventually cleared of any and all wrong doing, but the damage (and Tucker) was done. How far behind is Tesla?
This week is SEMA week, and I’m not there. Which is just fine with me. (In case you’re lucky and don’t know what SEMA is, it’s the tuner car show. Click over to Jalopnik to see how silly it all is). Why don’t I care about SEMA? Because I’m not interested in new 42 inch rims that cost as much as Nicaragua. I also don’t care about new bodykits for Ferraris, just because someone with plastic molds decided that they know better than Pininfarina. And I’m really, seriously not interested in washed up rappers’ pimped out family station wagons. I just find the whole event mind-numbingly boring. I’d rather chew cardboard. This isn’t to say I think car mods are all unworthy. If you run your car on veggie oil, like Chuck Goolsbee and other TTAC commenters, that’s a fantastic mod. Or the guys that converted a BMW 750i to a manual transmission: very cool. And nothing wrong with a Porsche 914 with a WRX engine (Porsche purists dissent, but it’s a worthy debate). So mods are good. But as far as I’m concerned, SEMA is just a snore.
I know Farago’s answer, but hear me out. As I mentioned when I reviewed the Bullitt, I’ve driven many Mustangs. And do you want to know the truth? The fact they all have live axles… really doesn’t make any difference. Like, let’s get real here. None. As far as I can tell, the only time you can tell from the driver’s seat the new Mustang is without IRS is when you hit a bump going around a corner. “Dude!” I hear you yelling, “You’re admitting that bumps upset the live axle!” No, not really. I’m simply saying that live axles feel different from IRS. The car doesn’t explode. But what about dangerous? Naw. I mean do you see Mustang FR500Cs killing their drivers any faster than the BMW Z4s, Lotus Exiges, Aston martin V8s or Porsche Caymans it competes with in GT4? Right, you don’t. “But, but, but!” I hear you stammering. “Those ‘Stangs are highly tuned. Regular Mustangs aren’t.” Says who? Here’s what I’m saying after driving an awful lot of Mustangs. Knocking on live axles is just another anti-American car Jeremy Clarksonism. What’s next, knocking the Z06 because it sports traverse leaf springs? Oh wait– he did that, didn’t he? What say you?
Recent Comments