The Hybrid Myth!

In today's ever-evolving and largely sheep-like, ultra-pc-concerned world, Governments, the auto industry and people are racing to find the 'quick-fix' for the 'Green Movement'. Everyone is trying to appear as if they are doing their part for the environment. It's taken decades to affect the climate and it'll probably take over a century to undo.

But in the here-and-now, companies are trying to make the consumer believe that they're doing something good for the future. Don't be fooled into thinking that the environment is their first concern, it isn't! Profits are. But so long as they can create a convincing illusion of trying to reduce the ill-effects of their products' damages upon the environment and consumers remain nothing more than sheep with wallets, they'll continue forging ahead with the lie.

Enter stage-left, the Hybrid vehicle. In principle, it's a fantastic idea. In execution however, it is a quick-fix that is nothing more than an automotive illusion with no real benefits. When the automotive climate changed (no pun intended), suddenly the car makers found themselves being blamed for the hole in the ozone, global-warming, cat farts and God knows what else. The truth is, cars aren't responsible at all for global warming, nor are they the major factor in greenhouse gases. Silly as it is, it's farm animals that are producing the largest quantities of greenhouse gases. That's right, farms and more specifically, cows. The rain forests are being torn down to make room for cow farms that will eventually sell the animals to McDonald's and other large food chains.

But will Greenpeace tell you that? Nope. That don't sell. How would it appear if when watching the daily news, you hear a report about how cow-farts are the largest factor in greenhouse gas emissions? Would you believe it? Would you be so disgusted to think that cow farts are warming the planet that you'd want to go out and shoot at every cow you see? That idea don't sell. And it's too sickening to be believed. But it's true. But the tree-huggers of the media want you to think that the horrid automobile is the evil source of global warming, (it is NOT the sole source and nor is it the first source of global warming).

But as I said, the 'perception' is that cars are responsible. And it's easy to see why. Look at Los Angeles' air in the morning rush-hour. Look at Mexico City's air during rush hour. You can see smog (IF that is something that truly exists; ever notice how on 'smoggy' days, it's really only very humid?!), it's visible, tangible and easy to associate with cars.

So what's the solution? Well, there is none, not when it comes to cars, not yet anyway. Today's cars are over 700% more fuel-efficient and generate less exhaust gases than those made in the 1970's. Cars have never been 'cleaner' to manufacture and maintain. But public perception is a very strong motivator and so something had to be done. Enter the so-called Hybrid car. Well all know the basics of the hybrid, one gasoline engine mated in some way to an electric motor. In the many variations of Hybrids, the basic concept is the gasoline engine is used for acceleration and long distance travel, the electric being used for putting about in the city, thereby cutting on the exhaust gases produced by the individual car. And the poster-car for the Hybrid generation is the God-ugly Toyota Prius, (pronounced PRY-us, NOT Pree-uss!).

Already in its second-generation, one has to wonder right away: Why did they make it so ugly?? There was no need to make this car look like a tumor! It was ugly in its first generation and now it's uglier in its second-generation! And I wouldn't expect it to look any better for the third generation. But let's move on to why I'm using this automotive gallstone to demonstrate that Hybrids don't work.

So here you have the electric motor that holds its charge in a lithium-ion nickel battery. Mated with a 1.5 liter four-cylinder engine, you would expect this car to be easy on the wallet every week. Well it's not!. Let's back track to before the car is even built. For example, the nickel in the battery is mined in Canada, somewhere in Alberta I would expect. Then it's shipped across Canada (by truck or train I would expect), then loaded onto a cargo ship to shipped all the way to China to be refined, then it is loaded again on a ship to be sent to Japan to be integrated into the battery, which incidentally weighs over 1000 lbs! That's right, well over half the weight of the Prius is the car's electric motor's battery! In fact, it is a fact that building a Prius with all of its components 'harvested' from across the globe, it is more harmful to the environment than the typical construction of any other vehicle.

So, with the typical Toyota four-cylinder aboard and then large-capacity battery along with the electric motor, this car weighs far more than it appears to. It weighs well over a ton-and-a-half, more than a Corolla which is marketed above the Prius. I have seen claims that the electric unit for the Prius weighs in at only 100lbs. I find this incredibly difficult to believe considering all the power it must hold and the duration for which that charge may be needed. But this is only an example of the weak-kneed marketing of this car.

Bear in mind, the laws of physics play on the Prius as much as upon any other vehicle and there is one dynamic figure that will make or break the myth of the Hybrid: Power-to-weight ratio. In simple terms, it's like this: how many pounds of the car's total weight must each cylinder generate energy for in order to move the vehicle forward? So say in a typical car, it's 24lbs per cylinder or horsepower. But in the Prius, that power-to-weight ration is skewed far to the right of logical.

To demonstrate the British car show, Top Gear, created a comparison to show that the Hybrid and specifically the Prius, is not the solution to reduce the effect driving a car has on the environment. They placed a current-generation BMW M3 with a 4-liter V8 against the Prius. On their two-mile test track, they had the Prius do ten laps as fast as it can with the M3 chasing it. No passing, no fooling around, just ten laps around and then run the results. Even though the M3 weighs-in at nearly two tons, it has a larger engine in which that means that per cylinder there is less weight to move as there's more horsepower and more cylinders.

This test demonstrated that common belief that the larger engine is a gas guzzler and the lighter, smaller engine is better. The results are factual: the Prius brought in 17.2 miles per gallon, the M3 19.4. This is proof that it's not WHAT you drive, but HOW you drive. And it's also proof that Hybrids, although a good concept, just don't deliver what they promise. It's not poor design, it's more a lack of time to properly design a truly efficient system. Although Toyota's system is the best on the market today, it does NOT help the environment, it does more damage to it long before the car's even on the road. Today's Hybrids just don't deliver!

The upcoming Chevy Volt holds promise as it uses a design that reverses the engines' roles: the electric is the primary means of propulsion and the combustion engine is the back-up engine for higher speeds or highway. It has yet to be seen if this will be the new direction for Hybrids. Only time will tell.

But as I try to point out on most of my blogs, do the research, form your own opinion, look at yourself and ask are you just another 'sheep' who believes clever marketing?

Remember, the truth and the promise aren't always the same.

Has the manual transmission gone the way of the dinosaurs?

In today's technologically, ever-advancing world, cars are one of the most advanced and continuously evolving machines we have in our daily lives. And one aspect of the impact on our use of cars is the switch-over from manual transmissions to Tiptronics in all its forms. The days of the three pedals on the floor are numbered and the countdown to their complete demise is on.

The Tiptronic, or manu-matic or whatever any other car company wants to call it is quite simply the meeting-in-the-middle of the manual transmission with the automatic. Now, I'm no engineer so i can't explain it to you in a technical fashion, but would you want me to? I didn't think so. Basically, it's a computer-monitored transmission that has an automated clutch that engages when you either shove a shifter-arm forward or back, or flick a paddle behind the steering wheel.

To see what an impact the development of the Tiptronic transmission has had on the automotive industry, you only have to look to the high-end or exotics. Currently, Ferrari is the leader in the development of the fastest-shifting Tiptronic transmissions in the world. Ferrari can now claim with their F430 Scuderia, that they've developed the fastest shifting manumatic ever made. It can shift gears within 0.036 seconds, which is faster than you can blink! That's incredible considering all that has to happen within that incredibly short amount of time. The transmission is in-gear, the gear is turning, the clutch is pushed in, then the next gear slides in and the clutch is released. All while the engine's energy is being directed through the transmission to the wheels. When you look at the first picture above, that's the interior of the Ferrari 550 Maranello. Look at that shift-gate. I've driven a Ferrari before and anytime I can avoid shifting through that mechanical maze called the shift-gate, I'll take the Tiptronic!

Almost every manufacturer today has a variant of the Tiptronic transmission. They have different names. But they all do the same. Some even have two clutches built-in. And when you think about the evolution of the Tiptronic transmission and how fast it's finding its way into the everyday car, you'd have to wonder why continue with the manual trannie?

Well frankly, there's only one real reason to continue with the production of what is basically an outdated design: cost. The manual is cheaper to produce... for now. But they are more expensive to maintain. And if you live in hill-country, they're a nightmare to use. And even lesser-so, if you're like me, you enjoy just driving but live in the 'big city', then you take no pleasure in the constant shift-up, shift-down in the daily grind of stop-and-go traffic. It takes the pleasure from driving and turns it into a task. No thanks.

The day will come when it will be an option on a spec-sheet. As with all things, it is an expensive option to start with but as more companies incorporate the Tiptronic, the manual will die away. Imagine how there would be just one less thing for "Canada's Worst Driver" to worry about. No more jerky starts; no more embarrassing stalls at the lights. In a straight line, even the everyday-guy could learn to shift like a pro.

The one sad 'victim' of this technology's development is the SMG,(BMW)or DSG,(Volkswagen) transmission. I've made reference to BMW's SMG trannie in my review of the BMW 550i SMG. It is an incredible pleasure to drive and use but as it proved so unpopular with, frankly, twit-drivers, we won't likely see its continued production or deployment to other vehicles in BMW's lineup. I haven`t heard much about Volks` DSG (Direct Shift Gears). As I write this, it seems the enthusiasts love it. But how seriously can you take them when all they`re driving a VW Golf?!

Now this probably doesn't mean much to you you say. When am I going to find myself on a racetrack or anything like that? Well, just look at our first weeks of winter. I've had to 'rock' myself out of a snowbank a good few times already but my CRS has a traditional automatic and it's a good thing I can shift it back and forth quite quickly. But it's not good for the transmission and it would be faster and less harsh on the machinery if it was a Tiptronic.

In BMW's cars, you can just choose the gear you want without having to go through them individually until you find the gear you want/need. Now how great is that? Well, in a foot of loose snow, pretty damn good I'd say if you have a good set of tires, you'd be out of the snow in a few short minutes. No aggro!

But that's just my opinion. Despite today's automotive industry's corporate plight, they won't stop development of new technologies. In Europe at least, people always want something more, something different. The car will always be evolving and so will the technologies contained within. Mark these words, the day will come when the traditional transmission is an option.

And I for one, look forward to that day. Bring it on!

The Maximum Maxima!

Today's note is about one of my favorite cars: The Nissan Maxima.

The Maxima has been around for ages. It is to Nissan what the Accord is to Honda or the Camry to Toyota. Only that it's always been better than either. Now woa, you might say, better than either? That's not what popular belief would tell you. Well, if you want to be led like a sheep and believe what 'the crowd' believes, go right ahead. If you have a mind of your own and have read my previous blog in which I 'reveal' Honda's truth, well then guess what: the Japanese 'King' has been dethroned.

In production under the name of Maxima since the days of Datsun, the Maxima has gone through many different incarnations. I owned a 2003 SE and was stunned at how good it moved, how well-equipped it was and could only wonder how the hell could the other two Japanese manufacturers be on top over this vehicle! Along with the above-mentioned, the Maxima's VQ6, 3.5 liter, 255hp engine has been voted one of the top ten best engines in the world for the last 11 years! That is an incredible statistic! And I for one can attest to how well it drove.

The first thing that you notice is how light the car was made to feel. And I don't know how they did it. A well-insulated chassis, very little vibration made into the cabin. And the engine responded immediately. The only engine that I can think that reacts ever more quickly is BMW's 4.4 liter V8, a significantly larger engine. The steering was light but not over-boosted. The brakes were as immediate as was the sound coming out of the 6-cd Bose sound system.

In 2003, Nissan built the last "Japanese" Maxima, meaning that for North America, it would be the last Maxima built in Japan before they moved north American Maxima production to Canada. Now there's nothing wrong with that in theory but it wasn't too well received. As the generations of Maxima came and went, it went from a non-descript Japanese family sedan to a Japanese sports sedan. As you can see by the pictures above, they start with the 2003. Making a statement with the clustered HID headlights, the huge but tasteful spoiler on the trunk and the alloy five-spoke wheels, it made a statement: "Nissan is exciting!" And it was not a hopeful message, it was bang-on!

It was 'athletic', as good a word as I could come up with in the short time I owned it. (Sadly, it was destroyed in a five-car pile-up due to the ignorance of a driver who probably should never been driving and who (here's the insult), never suffered any injury to her vehicle!)

And then the next generation came along and it appeared to have gone wrong. Being the first Maxima built in North Americ for our market, it appeared... well, to use a term: "American"... fat and bulky and lazy. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually paraphrasing one of my best friend's comments about Americans and he himself IS American. As you can see in the second picture, the Maxima filled-in its curves. It got 'frumpy'. The only good change was probably the larger trunk. It had a novel option too, though, a sun-roof that wasn't a sunroof. It was a strip of tinted glass that ran along the center line of the car's roof. You could open slots in the ceiling that allowed the sun in but you couldn't open the glass partitions at all.

And it was the first Nissan to incorporate the now near-perfect CVT, (Continuously Variable Transmission). Now, what that means is there's no real gears. There are chain-link belts that run along two cones facing each other and they vary continuously between each one allowing more chain on one cone versus the other, allowing more speed versus more torque. In principal, it was a good idea. Fewer moving parts, less maintenance, more power to the wheels, better fuel efficiency. But there was one function in which this transmission suffered: No driving fun.

The 'shifts' were badly simulated, in which the engine would drop only 500rpms. In spirited driving, this was pathetic and lethargic. Throughout its existence, the Maxima was the sporty one vs. its Honda and Toyota brethren. But then when this version came out, its curves were gone. The light, athletic feel of driving it was gone too. It was never an ugly car but it was more like an Olympian who retired to become a sports-caster. You know the ones, those who can critique everything an athlete can do but they themselves no longer can.

And now comes the 2009 Maxima, as seen in the before-last picture. Back are the curves, the sporty look, the message of athleticism. Basically, the Maxima's back! As you can see by it's curves, Nissan must have studied a variety of cover models of Maxim but this car has some seriously feminine-inspired curves. C'mon, you see it! The hips, the narrow waist, the shoulders. If you analyze it further, you can almost see 'other' curves that I won't mention here. And those curves serve a strict purpose: they help airflow around the car. Even the hood is sealed within, with two large rubber 'bladders' running down the inside to keep the world from creeping inside the engine bay. The seams where the hood and the fenders meet is so smooth and shallow. And when inside looking out, again you see those wonderful curves. The view on the driver's outside mirror is almost perverted.

From the arrowhead headlights to the taillights that look like they're barely catching up, the new Maxima doesn't stop impressing with only the exterior's redesign. The interior was most certainly not forgotten either. As Nissan is the parent-company of Infiniti and as Infiniti targets BMW as Lexus targets Mercedes-Benz, the interior of the Maxima truly takes some very obvious cues from two of BMW's fleet: the 5 and 7 series cars.

From the paddle-shifters behind the steering wheel, (you can 'row' through the gears with the gear-shifter in Tiptronic, too), and the electric privacy curtain hiddne in the rear window's shelf, you can see the hints of the 5-series. And then there's the radio and seperate climate controls for the rear passengers located in the rear-seat's fold-down central console, again, taken from BMW's 7-series.

But the Maxima's not just a pretty face. The sports-ness of it is back too. I've driven three, all with the so-called Tech-packages and the 20-inch tires. I honestly could not tell that under those fenders were 20 inches of rubber. It's light and athletic responsiveness was back too. But more importantly, the 'shifts' were far more "real", if I can say that about a CVT. That's right, it's still a CVT but now you'd be heard-pressed to guess it if you weren't told. Now under aggressive but playful driving, the CVT will down-shift over 1500 to 2500 rpms. There's a convincing pull when the transmission shifts one gear to another. And the paddle-shifting is the best I've sampled. The shift-paddles were taken from the notorious GT-R, only without the leather trim on the blades.

When driving this car, I couldn't help but scream aloud that "NISSAN, YOU FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT!" As a sporty driver who hates shifting with a clutch, (I know, it's a contradiction), I would accept this CVT without hesitation. It was immediate, it was noticeable, let's face it, in such driving conditions, you want the car to 'tell' what's happening in response to your inputs. The newly revised VQ35 3.5 liter 290hp, growled superbly when I dropped the hammer and asked this relatively virgin engine to pull this machine to 160km/h! Going up a local highway route, I was more involved in what the car was telling me when I noticed we were ripping along towards 180km/h when we blew past a provincial police cruiser in the median. He never saw us!

Along with the above-mentioned performance plays, this car is very well equipped electronically. From the DVD-based Navigation 6-cd Bose sound system, the adaptive cruise control and the 5-million way adjustable driver's seat, there's just no displeasure to be found in this car. Another original idea, and it pleased my 7 year-old son to no end, you can have a traditional sunroof as well as a sunroof AND a rear sun-screen in the roof. They are also both have a hide-away screen that completely blocks out the sun when extended that is controlled by a simple button on the center console.

I can tell you that this is no slab-sided frumpy Japanese wish-I-was car. I can openly say it has one short-coming: it is front-wheel drive. There is no problem with the FWD as a concept. But when it comes to performance driving, it's better to have rear-wheel drive, if only because you can take corners and slaloms at a higher rate of speed. When it comes to front-wheel drive, no matter how well designed a suspension is, a front-wheel drive car will over-steer no matter what. no matter how well you point the nose in the direction you want to go, the car will go wide in the turn. Over-steer where the rear of the car starts to come out, it actually allows you more control over the direction the car will go, despite the perception that you no longer have control.

Anyway, if you want a thrilling, practical, stylish car that just delivers an amazing combination of sports car and sedan, the Maxima's it. You can can say it's the Maximum car. Try one on your own, find it's sweet points, enjoy its curves, the equipment packages. You'll see it's so much different than its counterparts.

A New Direction...

Today`s blog is going to be taken in "a new direction", so to speak. Today, I'll be writing a review of a car I test-drove earlier this Fall: The BMW 550i with the SMG transmission.

Now anyone's who's a BMW fan and a Canadian knows that this means I can only be talking about the M5. But I'm not, I swear.

In a string of coincidences, I was able to test drive a 2007 550i that had been recently imported from the US. Here, in Canada, only the lucky saps who could afford the current-generation of M5, could experience this amazing transmission. Phooey on them, I say.

As a fan of the 5-series, I am always on the lookout for a great car at a great price. I came across this ad for this car at what was about half-price of new but then I noticed this notation about it having the SMG transmission, (Sequential Manual Gearbox). Huh, said I, for I know that that transmission was not available for any car other than the M5 and even then, I'm sure they're just so rare in this northern clime.

So I went to see this car, having only read nightmarish reviews of this transmission. But when it was explained to me and I tested it, I could only wonder, "what are all those complaints about?" Was everyone wrong?

I can say with an unqualified: YES! They're all wrong! No matter who they are! Wrongo!! You see, I'm not a fan of stick-shifting. Living in the nation's capital, I can't stand thinking about having to work a trannie and a clutch in stop-and-go traffic. Thank God, Ottawa's geography is relatively flat. Back in my home town, if you went a half-kilometer without either disappearing below the horizon or climbing over it, you WEREN'T in my home town!

But I do love the Tiptronics or Manu-matics, as they can be known. You know, an automatic that can be shifted by paddles or flicking the shifter over to one side and 'rowing' back and forth between the gears. No jerking; no stalling; no screeching tires. And now I'm facing this transmission. Hmm, so I asked what the difference is with this transmission versus a standard Tiptronic.

Well, this car is still a manual, it won't shift without you, (there is a near-automatic mode that I'll address later). It has an electronic double-clutch that engages when the gas pedal is momentarily released. You shift up or down, the car doesn't 'know' what you're going to do. So, there is computer "support" but it does still leave the work to you without you having to worry about all the negative things listed about in regards to driving a stick-shift. So you can rev it all the way to the red line before shifting or simply shift it 'quietly' at 2500 rpm and be on your way.

The shifter simply moves forward or back, shift up; shift down; it's that simple.How brainless, so to speak! There's even a set of 'paddles', though I'd call them 'buttons' sitting above the 3 and 9 o'clock positions within the steering wheels' radius. There are very few systems like that that I'd trust as being pure. I can concede that marques such as Aston Martin; Ferrari; Lambo; etc, are going with paddle-shifting and some do it well and others, not so much.

So my test-drive was in pure manu-shift mode, using the shifter at all times. Now I know purists will shun me for this but to each their own. I can see that this system delivers more control and torque without a traditional clutch to worry about. I could start the car from still, in second gear and it did not spin the tires in the fashion that shows you don't know how to drive. Oh, I DID spin them but that was more about enjoying that 4.8 liter V8!

There`s a BMW 540i sitting in my garage and it makes do with a 4.4 V8 and only 5 forward gears. This new 550i, (I`ve never discovered the origin of the "i" in BMW's naming), has 6 forward gears and it responds IMMEDIATELY! The 7 year-old V8 in my garage is no slouch and it is astounding how BMW has worked to make their engines respond so quickly to throttle input. It's like, step on it and you're there before you left... and it made a great big noise on its way!

Now, I've driven the 545s and there was something 'soft' about them. Although it was the same engine as what's in my garage, it accelerated like it was out for a brisk walk. Not a slug, but not "HOLY &%$#" like the 2002 540i sitting downstairs. I can't begin to understand why. Perhaps BMW was more focused on its sheep-herding 3-series development that all it bothered to do when redesigning the 5-series was just to give it a face lift, inside and out. As you may have guessed, I'm not a 3-series fan. Around here, anyone who doesn't have a Porsche Boxster, has a 3-series BMW. I'm not putting down it's performance capacity. It's just that it's so common and so 'me-too' for a car the size of a Honda Civic at four times the price.

So, getting back to the 550 I was looking at. Stunning condition for a car that saw a New York winter and a Canadian one after that. Not a scratch on the body, equipped with Nav, 6-cd player, parking sensors, neck massagers and a stunning two-tone dark grey and caramel leather. It even had a 60-40 split rear seat, something it's grand-father sitting in my garage, doesn't have.

So here I am, off on down a country road, the owner describing how it works. "Just like an arcade version", he says. Ho-kaayy, I think to myself. So then, we switched places, I do all the mirror work and spend ten minutes figuring out what the 27 buttons on the side of the seat do. And now it's my turn.

So it's parked, I push the gear lever forward, step on the gas a bit and BLAMMO!!! We're gone! WO! That engine has awakened, returned to the behavior of the 5-series as I've always known it.

It was terribly easy to drive and master. Anyone who's played any racing game in an arcade would be able to master this trannie easily! Gas; step-off/shift; gas... step-off/shift. Couldn't be simpler. And the I was told it could be driven as an automatic, although that's secondary to the original design.

Now it's within this capacity that I'm sure most people have tried to use it and came away perturbed. You see, driving it in "automatic" is so much like driving it manually, it's nearly the very same procedure: gas;step-off/let-the-car-shift; gas. Depending on how aggressively you're driving, you would 'know' when the car's about to shift, let off the gas, it shifts, back on the gas again. Simple, simple, simple. But I believe that it's when people were driving it this way that THEY made the errors that would lead them to conclude that the trannie doesn't work.

You see, look at the procedure above and analyze the following: what would happen if you didn't let off the gas? Something like this, I would assume: Vrooooom; jerk; scree; vroom. Did you get that? I suspect that in this automatic mode, drivers weren't letting off the gas either in time or they just couldn't figure out the timing of when it would shift and so the result was very jerking driving.

And they blamed the car! I for one, loved it. It drove so intuitively, the shifts were fast and sharp and once I learned to time myself to the shifts, (which took all of less than two minutes!), it was a perfect ride. This transmission's shifting capacity for well-timed and surprisingly quick shifts, was fantastic.

I loved driving this car with this transmission! I can see why there are those who don't like it and I'm sure that I've "hit the nail on the head" with my supposition as to why others don't like it. If I could have done so, I would have bought this car. The body was perfect, the engine alive with incredible reaction times; the transmission made the drive so much more involved but not to the point of it becoming a chore. The interior's color combination and the equipment level was just as perfect.

So, my conclusion is simple: don't listen to me as a ruler to judge by. Don't listen to the press either. Learn from it, let any negative or positive commentary such as my own sway you. Try something yourself. Use what I and others have said as a guide to look directly into the issues that others complained or boasted about and decide for yourself.


Although I've always been a fan of the 5-series, I am always ready to say when BMW has 'missed the ball' on something. But not today. I would recommend that if you ever have a chance to buy or even just try one, go ahead do it. You'll see that BMW delivers on the promise.

What should have been a technical success for BMW turned into a bane of retort. But it's not bad engineering or bad products; it's bad drivers!

I salute BMW for taking a new direction

Successful cars that I don't understand...

And for today's blog, I'm going for the "What were they thinking?!" pages of the automotive industry. Vehicles that we all know are successful but when you look at them, truly analyze them, you can only come to one conclusion and it goes something like this: "HUH?!!" (I'm summarizing, of course).

For instance, let's start with the goiter-on-wheels, the Buick Rendezvous. This vehicle looks like it's upside-down! Really! Look at the grill, it's in three parts and none of them even bother to blend. It looks like the lower two-thirds of the grill wants to be anonymous! Then there's that ugly slope in the back, by the C-pillars, as if the rear-end had been sliced-off by a sledding accident when it was a 6 year-old child and replaced with some sort of skin transplant.

The truly oddest thing about the Buick Rendezvous is that it came out at the same time as the Pontiac Aztec and that vehicle was killed off just as quickly as it came to the market. It was 'terminated' because of the poor market reaction to its angular shapes and the odd rear end. Hmm, wait a minute... that's the same rear end on the Buick! Could it be that only pensioners with failing eyesight bought them? Are there really that many people who didn't want a LeSabre but thought a minivan-ette (or whatever you want to call it), would be a better choice? Let's face it, Buick isn't exactly targeting the video game generation. But seriously, it isn't a good looking vehicle, but people bought them up like they were going out of style, (as if they ever were in-style).And they're too tall for a too-short wheelbase making for a very 'tippy' vehicle. It's not even possible to pretend there was any noteworthy performance. I really don't understand that truck/car/mini-something or whatever it is... or isn't.

And then there's the new Honda Fit. Good grief it's terrible. It's ill-proportioned, truly empty of any conveniences, a high starting price for essentially a frame and some windows. It has no flow in the shape and typical of most new Hondas for the last 25 years, it looks like the engineers ran out of lattees and had to decide whether they should finish the car's shape or run off to Starbucks for a refill... and you can guess how that decision ran. (Remember the CRX or Del Sol?). It's like its that 'special child', you know the one: "You're not different, you're special".

And when measured against its market competitors, such as the Nissan Versa, it just pales in comparison. At least the Versa has a finished body style. It also has an incredibly extensive options list that when all the boxes are checked, it's barely 2K ABOVE the starting price of the Fit.

The biggest problem with the Fit is the illusion that it's a good product just because it's a Honda. They've worked hard at concealing just how bad some of their products truly are, by not issuing recalls, for example. Have you ever heard of a product recall by Honda? I didn't think so. They generally issue 'voluntary recalls', essentially making their dealer network aware of certain deficiencies without publicizing them so that IF an owner becomes aware of a recall, they'll make a concession on the owner's behalf 'because they're such a good customer'. Give me a break. If you believe that, I've got some real estate going cheap in the Florida Keys!

Also, there's how structurally flimsy they are. A friend of mine had an Element and he practically t-boned an Oldsmobile who ran a light, running without headlights on. Despite the fact that physics dictates that the object that is the receiver of the energies of the impact usually suffers the most damage, his entire front end was plowed in. Though his insurance company ultimately decided to write it off, we always assumed that the reason the airbags didn't go off was because the Honda's computer decided the strength of the impact was not sufficient enough to deploy the airbags. I know sit and wonder... just how accurate is that assumption? Also, only last week, I saw an accident in which a Civic rear-ended an older Corolla and though the Corolla had only a damaged taillight hanging out of the body, the Civic's entire front-end had been torn from the body and what remained was a car that started from the firewall. Just look at the front end of the Fit, would you want to be in it when its involved in a frontal-collision of any sort? I didn't think so.

My wife was also involved in a rear-ender with a Civic, in which the Civic hit her Mazda's rear and in which the Civic was practically folded up like an accordion.

I say to you: don't be fooled by a clever years-long campaign to keep the truth from us. To quote a poignant show that I used to watch: "The Truth is out there".

And now, on what has to be the ugliest car on North American streets, the Toyota Echo. What kind of designer drug were the engineers smoking when they came up with that car?! First there was the two-door. Good God, what was the design inspiration for that? A suppository? I know they had to replace the Tercel but it was frankly one of their best cars and something like the Tercel was what they were looking for. But boy did they miss!! I mean really, just how drunk do you have to get in order for that car to start to look good??! (Guys, you know what I mean!)

And it's not just the outside of the car, the inside was a stoner's haven. First of all, since when have government regulations or even common-sense allow for the gauges and other major information displays to be moved out of the LINE-OF-SIGHT??! Now I know the economics-related reason they did this: with the console in the middle, they don't have to invest in designing and building consoles for the left-hand drive cars and others for the right-hand drive markets. But common sense dictates that the best place for the most important gauges should be the closest possible, within the line of sight being the best. Who can sit there with that plastic gap staring back at you? It was, quite possibly, the cheapest car that Toyota has built and I'm not making any reference to the price. it only got marginally better when the hatchback came out, at least that car's exterior was 'styled'. The sedan and the two-door, (no way am I calling THAT a coupe!), had no style whatsoever. The creases in the body were in the wrong places, the colors were the wrong ones for the shapes (every car has ITS color), even the tires were too small. It had no real storage space either. In the most plain terms I can use, it was just: UGLY!

The above-noted vehicles, barely cars as they are, are just the top three vehicles that I can think of in North America that qualify as ugly, useless and they truly make a person wonder.

I guess, I just don't understand them!

In the following posts, I will be writing about some test-drives I've taken of some of the more serious vehicles that you can get into without having a horrid haircut and a ruthless corporate image.

Cars that should have been a success but weren't...

Welcome again to another rant about the ever-evolving world of cars. Today's is about some very interesting vehicles that although were on the market for a number of years, weren't really successes. I'm speaking of the Chevy SSR, the Chrysler Crossfire and the PT Cruiser convertible. (I know, I`m missing a certain vintage-themed convertible from F*rd, but as I`ve said in previous blogs, I`ll elaborate later why I hate them).

Let`s start with the oldest of the bunch, the PT Cruiser. The PT in itself was a major success right off. Chrysler has a good track record of putting out vehicles that look like big risks, (ie: 300C; Charger and any other Hemi-engined car in today`s gas prices` world). The PT was probably the first of the intentioned retro-themed vehicles to hit the market. With it`s homage to 1930`s milk trucks, it was cute, different, well-priced but not much of a driver`s car. With the unconventional theme continued inside with body-colored matching interior plastic hues, it was different enough to be noticed without being too chintzy. Even the window control switches were located in the upper-dash. It had a fairly decent cargo area and as time wore on, a folding picnic table feature was added along with removable seats and then a cargo version. This was the beginning of the PT`s success. But one thing really hurt it and that was that it wasn`t particularly sporty to drive. It had a small-displacement 2-liter engine that produced only a mere 140hp. Now, that`s not bad perse in this vehicle`s segment but it needed more. Although there were multiple themed vehicles, the Sun Cruise, the Dream Cruiser and the Woody Cruiser, it just looked better than it could drive.

Then came the Turbo model. A 2.4 liter Turbo, now producing 180hp or 230hp depending on the model chosen. This did wonders for the car. Then Chrysler heard that a few enthusiasts in California were having their PTs "chopped", that is, they were being modified into convertibles. The name of the company doing these mods escapes me, (at the time of this writing), however I do know that Chrysler took a keen interest in the modifications. Turning this 4-door mini-cargo van into a two-door roll bar-intensive convertible wasn't easy. Chrysler contracted this company to mass-produce the convertibles for them when test-studies showed that a convertible would be welcomed by customers. Now what made it a non-success outside of California is essentially what made it a success in California: the conversion from four-door to two and that huge roll bar. (Can you hang upside down from it? I wouldn't try it.) You see, the bar needed to be there just in case you should find yourself parking the car on it's roof. Like GM's old Cutlass Supreme convertible, it had to have this huge steel bar running across the top to offering protection in case of a rollover. I should think that that bar wouldn't make me feel any safer should I be thinking of what the car would look like with it's wheels pointing to heaven. One has to ask, why did they install that thing? It wasn't for the structural reinforcement after taking the roof off. What? Oh, I forgot to mention: all PT Convertibles start their lives as traditional four-door trucklettes and are shipped West to get worked-over. The roof is chopped off, the body completely stripped and reworked, the under-floor reinforced, the trunk lid raised. But why the big meat-hook when BMW and Mercedes-Benz have long had the technology to conceal the safety bar either within the head-rests, (BMW), or a snap-up roll bar (M-B) that flips up into position should you go two-wheeling on one side beyond 20 degrees port or starboard?!

Although not a bad vehicle, the rest of North America didn't quite welcome the convertible too enthusiastically. So much so, that after Chrysler's recent restructuring, it's been axed. Although the PT continues, the convertible is dead. So, one wonders: are all those convertibles out there going to gain in value or just become another oddball in automotive history?

And on to the Chrysler Crossfire. Now there's a car that's earned a serious love-it-or-hate-it reaction. The first Chrysler that was really more Mercedes-Benz than a Chrysler, on paper and in person, it seemed a winner. Based on the older-SL chassis from M-B, it was retro-themed, although not specifically based on any one car from history, it looked "vintage" and new. From the ripples in the hood, to the 'boat-tailed' rear window, it looked great. And immediately, Chrysler made a strong point of showing its performance aspects; the hydraulic rear-spoiler that could be deployed either manually or when over speeds above 60mph, to the classic front-engined, short-wheelbase and the cockpit over the rear wheels, the Crossfire was later joined an SRT model (Street Racing Team), and a convertible. And anyone who bought loved them. But not everyone could. Because of the tapered v-shaped rear window, the cockpit was very tight. Depending on your seating position and your height, you either fit in it or not at all. And since it was more Mercedes than Chrysler, it had a Mercedes price tag of around $60,000 for a starting price. As good looking as it was, most potential buyers were put off by the price. Why would you put down 60K when for a few bucks more (not so few, really), you could get a Mercedes-Benz convertible?! More people were willing to accept the German price tag for a German car rather than pay into Chrysler's coffers. So, other than the oddly shaped cockpit, the Crossfire had very few shortcomings as a car. But people weren't ready for that price for a Chrysler. And so too goes the Crossfire into the annals of automotive history.

And now, on to the probably oddest of all: the Chevy SSR. On paper, this "truck" had all the right ingredients: the Corvette's engine,(de-tuned); a pickup truck's bed; a folding hard-top roof; the awesome retro-styling. It was all right! But it wasn't, not really. But the final product disappointed. Why? Well, some obvious reasons and some not-so-obvious. One: an $80,000 price tag! Two: the engine! De-tuned alright! Calling it a Corvette engine was about as close as it got to being a Corvette`s engine! Don`t get me wrong, I`m not a fan of the `Vette, but even I can acknowledge that a 340+hp, 5.7, small-block V8 should be a tarmac-shredding engine and it just wasn`t. Acceleration times were abysmal! It accelerated about as fast as the government is at issuing refund cheques at tax time! And the cargo bed was barely accessible. Although it was well over 6 feet long, the hard tonneau cover would barely open to accommodate anything bought from Ikea. So, although it was fabulous to look at, that`s the best it was good for. At least the two-piece folding hard-top worked. But the two major faults were the price and the lack-luster performance. You don`t make a car that looks fast and just isn`t. It`s the equal to making an empty promise.

So there we have, three of the most "promising" cars that didn't work commercially. They looked good; the drove well; they were different and quirky and unique. In today's used car market, they could be found for a fraction of the price they were when new... IF you can find them.

I'm quite sure, though, that those people who DID buy them, love them!! And if I had bought one of them... I probably would too.

The next posting will be on those cars that were successes and really shouldn't have been.

Why we don't get the really good cars, Part 2

I felt I had to write this addendum to yesterday's blog because I felt there was still so much more to say about why we get, (for the lack of a better choice of words), the 'bottom-of-the-barrel' selection of the world's choice of cars.

It's wrong of me to create the image that what we have here in North America is a poor selection of cars. We do, after all, have over 40 brands of vehicles for sale in Canada. But my primary point was to ask, and then answer, why do WE in Canada have to accept only the choices the automotive industry offers us based on American economics.

I'm sure the few posts I've put up lately may seem like 'Yankee-bashing', but that's not my intent. My intent is to make you aware that there's so much more out there; so many choices that I'm sure we'd welcome; so many things held back from us just because our population is too small.

How that makes sense, I couldn't say. I know that that's the why but that doesn't mean it makes sense. Here's an example of what I mean: last year I was in Mexico, more precisely the Yucatan peninsula, and the vehicles I saw there were just so 'interesting', even if only because though they are essentially ordinary daily-drivers for the Mexican populace, they had cars there that wouldn't be in North America for another half-year! To be more model-specific, they had the BMW 1-series and they were everywhere. But this car had yet to bow in North America.

I don't intend to be offensive but why is it that Mexico had these vehicles before we do, before the American market had them?! Economically, Mexico is far poorer than North America, so again, how did it make sense for that BMW and Peugeots and Citroens and other such vehicles to be in Mexico before the rest?! Now that, I can only guess at.

It's a wonder that the Ariel Atom (shown in thumbnail pic above this posting), was introduced to Canada at all, much less even within the same year that it came out in the UK. And although it is 29,000 British pounds in the UK and is nearly $80,000 here, it is still an astonishing car. Zero-to-sixty in 2.9 seconds! That's faster than a $2,000,000 Ferrari Enzo!!!

But would that matter to the ordinary person? Probably not... until you look at this special fact: In places like the UK, the balance of Europe and elsewhere, cars like the Renault Clio, (saw them by the dozens daily too), cost only about 8000-units of the respective country. So, in the UK for example, this Renault would cost about 8000 British Pounds. Using the generalization that the UK's currency is roughly 1-pound (UK) is $2.2 (Canadian), then that car is suddenly $16,000 here. Is that horrific? Is that reason enough to not bothering offering it to us? Nope!

Heck, we have plenty of $16,000 cars, (though there are fewer and fewer still as time goes on), the Nissan Sentra for example; the Pontiac Wave (Suzuki Sidekick re-badged); the Chevy Optra5 (re-badged Daewoo Lanos), etc. I would have used Honda if the Civic were still a reasonably-priced car but that no longer the situation.

Nevertheless, my point is, the European manufacturers I listed above would only have 'excuses' for not bringing their vehicles to our shores. Even considering the price-gouging that's been the norm on car pricing up until this past summer, they would still easily sell their cars here.

Don't be swayed by any previous that some of these cars have for when they were once here. That's right, Citroens, Peugeots, Renaults, they were here before. But they will equipped to handle how our infrastructure is supported in the winter, re: ROAD SALT!

Just go looking for a Renault Clio and note how many episodes of Top Gear that that car made an appearance on. And it's bloody fast too! Renault could learn from BMW's example when they re-introduced the Mini, which was quite probably one of the biggest gambles in recent automotive history. But it was a massive success and continues to be so. I've driven one of the base model cars and though it's nothing spectacular in Automatic mode, throw it into Tiptronic and shift going into a tight s-curve and you will be blown away by this miniature front-wheel-drive 'BMW'! I have never driven such an athletic front-wheeler ever.

But I digress. My focal point is that I believe Canada and Canadians are ready for more selection; more quality; some quirkiness; perhaps even out-rightly better cars.

Will it happen in our lifetime where our automotive borders will be lowered? Probably not. But who can say with any certainty?!

I for one, would love to see a day when a Clio were to drive by, followed by an Alfa Romeo 8C and then an Ariel Atom.

But that's just a car-guy's dream.

Why we don't get the really good cars.

The other day I was watching an episode of Top Gear that a colleague of mine had downloaded and copied to CD for me, (what do you mean it's illegal?), and I began to wonder: why don't we get those awesome Bugattis, Koenigsiggs; Morgans; Pagani Zondas; Audi RS6, Ascari A10; Gumpert Appollo; KTM RC8; Jaguar XJ220; TVRs;, featured in the JohnTravolta movie Swordfish, and until recently, the Ariel Atom. Why are these incredible high-performance vehicles reserved only for those who live in the 'old world'? Why aren't they here for all of us to enjoy the 'see-it-once-in-your-lifetime' experience? Is it the dollar? Nope. No matter the price, there will always be someone who has the money and is willing to pay top-dollar for the right to own something that no one else has, (just look at the Barrett-Jackson auction of two years ago and the CNN Hummer!). Is it government legislation? Not really, not for those of us who live in the snow-belt. Then why aren't we allowed the right to complain that they're here but there's no roads good enough to drive them on?

Well, stupidly enough, it's because we don't count. Canada's population is too small to count as a large enough demographic in which car makers are willing to invest in modifying their cars adequately enough to accommodate our legislation. So, is that why they're not sold here? Nope, again.

It's because of the US market, mostly because of California's emissions laws and the federal laws governing bumpers, impact velocities, etc. That's right, our automotive future is decided by the laws and policies of another land! Now, you ask, how does that make sense and why doesn't a population of 33 million and a few thousand millionaires justify bringing these cars overseas?

Well, aside from the US' governance, you would assume, it's because of the climate. After all, can you envisage an Ascari or an Enzo on the roads in the winter? Nope? Well, oddly enough, Ferrari did sell Enzos in Canada, so why not the Ascari? In this case, it's money, plain and simple. (Look for these cars on YouTube, using Top Gear as a header).

As limited a production as the Enzo was, (349 units, three 'test mules'), it was still sold here and despite being listed in the millions of dollars, they were ALL sold. So, again, why not those cars with the weird names listed above?!

Well, those specialty cars are VERY limited, numbering less than 200 probably for each. And they're hand-built. Wow, says you! if you had the money...

But this isn't reserved to legendary super cars. Today's blog is about all cars. We don't get Daihatsu; most Mitsubishis or Nissans; Renaults, (don't knock it, they made more than just the Renault 5 and the Encore; they're one of Europe's best 'people cars'). What about the Peugeots; the Citroens; even Skodas! Have you seen what a Honda Civic Si looks like in Europe vs. the lumbering snoozer we get here?! (Don't get me wrong, the new Civic Coupe is damn good looking, it's just that what's offered in Europe is BETTER.)

Heck, even the one brand I truly detest, F*rd, is far better than what's served up on the automotive platter in North America.

What about Opel and Vauxhall... again, some of the best 'people cars'. But why don't we see them on our roads?!

Well, it all comes down to conditioning. When you compare the European and North American markets, they're so much more open to new things, to advances in technology and designs. But we North Americans are soo conservative. Well, we're not I say. I say 'Enough, let the genie out of the bottle!' We have some nice cars to choose from but really look at them. Buicks; Oldsmobiles; Crown Victorias; Impalas; etc. We're conditioned to take things very slowly. Why do we have such huge, lumbering chrome-laddened machines? As much as I love the Chrysler 300C, it's another car that fits the North American ideal. When Top Gear reviewed a prototype of the 300C, they were astonished by it's design, (it IS damn handsome) but more by its sheer size. The only vehicles larger in Europe are Rolls Royces and Maybachs.

I say we're ready for variety. I say we want all flavors. We want radical styling. We want cars that look like they belong in the 21st century, not 1962! We want flash red interiors with Sat-Nav that speaks like the butler on 'The Nanny`. We`re ready for George Jetson`s car! We`re ready to accept something different than our North American cousins to the South of our borders.

I say, as practical as they are, we don`t need 15 cup-holders. Drink your Timmy`s in the dining area! Cars are for more than just go to work; groceries; in-laws; Ikea. Cars have been with us for over a century now and although they`re not flying yet, I say we should fly in the face of North American... (or American for that matter), conformity and open our land to those other great automakers from `across the pond`.

Now, if we could only get those brands to see us for what.. or who, we`re not.