Posting will be a little sporatic the next few days ...

Because of the holidays and some craziness at work, I might not be posting as much as I'd like. Look for my Best and Worst of 2008 list coming soon.

By the way, Spark's website is up, even though it's just a placeholder right now. It's still exciting! Look for a full-function website coming soon too.

www.sparkautoconsulting.com

Happy New Years!

Please drive safely!

Happy Holidays! I was just talking to a friend who has a new car with AWD, and while it has great traction, ice and snow are tricky things. He slid across an intersection while braking on a downhill incline, and while he's perfectly fine, it's a wake-up call.

So please remember: the best way to keep safe in slippery conditions is to drive VERY CAREFULLY. That means slow! And while on dry pavement the brakes are your friends, on ice the brakes can actually cause you to lose traction and slip. Use lower gears (ie, 2, 3, or D3 on a Honda - read your owner's manual for more details) and always be aware of the situation around you.

And if you don't have to drive, please stay at home. That's even better than driving carefully.

Stay safe and have a wonderful holiday season!

More Lotus: insane descendants

http://jalopnik.com/5117709/donkervoort-d8-gt4-starts-production-takes-light-weight-to-the-extreme

Remember how yesterday I was talking about the Lotus 7 and its successors? Dutch carmaker Donkervoort really knows how to keep the legend alive. 270 HP, 1400lbs, zero to sixty MPH in less than 4 seconds. It set a lap record in 2004 at the notoriously long and dangerous Nurburgring Nordschliffe, long considered the benchmark for all-around performance.

Colin Chapman might not have approved of the styling, but he certainly would have appreciated the result.

Lotus: the future of car-building philosophy?

To be more accurate, Lotus' car building philosophy is not new. But it is simple, and even 50-odd years later, it's a refreshing outlook. The founder of Lotus cars was an Englishman named Colin Chapman, and his idea was that if you kept the weight of a car down, you could be faster than the competition despite using smaller engines. A smaller, lighter car also handles (that is, can take turns faster, brake harder, and change directions faster) better than a heavier one. If you remember the old Newtonian laws, this will make sense - there is less mass moving about, and so changing the motion of that mass takes less energy. Another upshot is that small, light cars invariably are more fuel efficient, and that is as important on the racetrack as it is on the street. But more on that last point in a bit.

One of his earliest and most iconic cars was the Lotus 7. This was about as minimalist as you get - two seats, a steering wheel, and four wheels. There was really no top to speak of, and most of the parts were taken from inexpensive donor cars (for example, the tiny motor was came from a small, inexpensive Ford sold in Britain). It was wildly successful as an inexpensive weekend racer, and it is still made to this day by successor companies who bought the rights to build the model (ie, the Caterham Se7en).

Why I am going on about this manufacturer? The New York Times just published a great review of one of Lotus' current offerings, the Exige S240. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/automobiles/autoreviews/21lotus-exige.html?8dpc) As the review explains, this car really takes the "add lightness" philosophy to heart. At just over 2,000 lbs. and making 240 hp, it goes 0-60mph in 4.1 seconds and gets 26 MPG on the freeway. And it does this without a huge V8, or a complex and expensive exotic engine. It uses a Toyota four-cylinder motor that came out of the decidedly unexotic Toyota Celica, with a supercharger bolted on.

What's the bottom line? I know that not every car can weigh 2,000 lbs, or go really fast with a tiny Toyota motor. And trust me, not every person could even fit inside a Lotus Exige (they're tiny!). And while safety is a really big concern for me in recommending cars, advanced safety technology can render even ludicrously small cars like the Smart ForTwo fairly safe. It's refreshing to realize that small, light cars carry lots of benefits, and can be fun to drive too.

How do I feel about domestic cars?

That’s a fair question, and it’s one that I think I should answer on this blog so you can understand if there is any bias that I have that you should know about. I work really hard to remain unbiased when I advise you, and I’ve had a lot of training as an attorney in advancing positions impartially. I consider it an ethical duty.


But I’m also going to tell you how it is. And the domestic manufacturers, for the most part, haven’t been putting the best cars on the road for a long time now. Does that mean if you are asking for a super-duty truck, I’m going to steer you away from a domestic? No, of course not. The domestics make the best light trucks in the industry. That’s a fact. Do they make the best mid-sized FWD sedan? No, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll always tell you to get an Accord or Camry. The Saturn Aura and Chevy Malibu are really great cars, they are just up against some really insane competition. Do you want to buy a car without negotiating, from an American company? Well then the Saturn is definitely your car, and I’d love to tell you to get one.


People have lots of reasons behind their purchase preferences. I respect all of them, and as a professional consultant, your preferences become MY preferences. Of course, as an advisor with strong ethics, I will disclose any information that I think you should know in making a decision. That’s a lot different than imposing my will on clients.


My philosophy is, I tell you about both sides of the coin, empowering you to make a better decision. I want you to be happy with your car. For many folks, buying a car is a little like getting a new pet. You’ll be spending a lot of time with it, it needs attention, and it will live for a long time. You can settle for something that’s ok but is more of an appliance, like the dishwasher, or you can get something you’re proud of. Usually the latter is the better option. But you tell me. It’s going to be your car, you can get something boring if you want!


So the bottom line is that I’m going to recommend the best car for the job, but the “job” is going to be your “job,” not mine.

Tip of the Day: Give your battery a check-up this winter

Cars nowadays are pretty reliable. Many cars don't require any scheduled maintenance for thousands of miles. But the battery in your car is pretty much the same as when it was invented in 1859, which means that you should pay attention to it. Over time, the battery's ability to hold a charge decreases, and eventually a battery will wear out.

So when should you check up on the battery? Once a season is my rule of thumb. And I recommend checking your battery when the weather starts getting cold (like right now!). Cold weather slows the electrochemical reaction in the battery, effectively reducing its output. So winter is when your battery is weakest and when it is most likely to let you down.

Take your car down to an auto parts store - they will usually test your battery with a portable tester for free. Or you can ask a trusted mechanic to give it a quick test. It's a simple and easy way to help ensure you don't get stranded in the cold!

Oh, and if you find out your battery is dead? Please recycle it. Take it to an auto parts store and they will take it in exchange for a new one.

President Bush Authorizes Auto Bailout Package!

The New York Times (and other sources) just reported that President Bush just authorized a bailout package for GM and Chrysler to the tune of $17.4 billion. I'm still trying to process the details, but this does NOT look like the "soft-landing bankruptcy" plan that newspapers and blogs were talking about yesterday, which would have basically been government supervision in restructuring the companies. It also looks like all of the government oversight and company requirements have been watered down a bit. I’m afraid this will let the companies muddle along for a while longer without really changing anything much. Basically, GM needs to slim down, and they seem incapable of shedding brands or models. Will this money make them do what they have been unable to since the dawn of time? I sure hope so.

Buying a car in a recession

"The economy is terrible! I shouldn't get a new car."

I hear that a lot. The economy is bad - we're in a recession. But that's not necessarily a bad thing for everyone. The long and the short of it is that this is a great time to pick up some amazing deals. But should you run out and snap one up?

Here is my short answer: if you feel fairly certain that you'll have a job and housing throughout the repayment term (loan payments or lease), then this is a great time to buy. If you're thinking you might change jobs or (gulp) be laid off, then my advice would be that taking on new debt is a bad idea.

That is a really simplified and short answer, and it's just meant to be an example. What is right for you is a harder question. If this is something you've been pondering, I'd say to give your CPA, financial planner, or someone similar a call and get some financial guidance. If you get the go-ahead, or decide that you're in a good position to buy a car, give me a call. I'd love to help you get one of the great deals that I've gotten for folks in the last couple of months.

What can we learn from the past?

Remember the late 80s and early 90s? I don’t really, I was pretty young. Mostly I remember thinking that Micheal Dukakis looked like a geek (rather than looking presidential). I was also sick of hearing the word “recession” on TV. It sounded gloomy and everybody looked upset.

Well, here we are again, in a recession. And let me tell you another similarity – we’re again burdened with a plethora of heavy, expensive sports cars and low-volume supercars. If the past is any lesson, that’s not a great combination.

The 300ZX, the Supra, and the RX-7 were all examples of cars that had bloated both in curb weight and in price. While their turbocharged motors were remarkable end-products of years of development (the Supra’s 2JZ-GTE is capable of remarkable power from stock engine internals), the rest of the cars became inflated caricatures of themselves. While some of the increase in expense was due to the exchange rates, I’ll leave that for an economist to explain. Most of the increase was from what I like to call feature-bloat. Nissan and Mitsubishi were the worst. Nissan offered Super-HICAS on the 300ZX, which was a rear-wheel steering system that really offered nothing but weight, complexity, and of course expense to the average driver. And Mitsubishi offered every bobble and device under the sun on their 3000GT model. Do you really need your front and rear spoilers to electronically bob up and down at a certain speed?

No, you don’t. And none of these cars survived the financial turmoil, leading to a particularly sorry period for car enthusiasts. Instead of light, cheap, rear-wheel-drive sports cars that were satisfying to drive (like the original 240z and RX-7), we had a bunch of slow and uninteresting front-wheel-drive cars. Was the Nissan 200SX really a sports car? From the beam-axle rear to the pathetic Sentra-derived aesthetic, it lands somewhere in my personal vehicle hall of shame.

One bright light was the Mazda MX-5 Miata, which sold like hotcakes in seemingly equal quantities to high school girls bound for sororities, and serious sports car lovers. The Nissan 240SX was a bland, if competent, rear-wheel-drive car powered by a truck engine. And the Integra GS-R and Type R made front-wheel drive fun, at least for the first owner. The second owners of these cars were invariably 17-year-old anime fans who immediately grafted poorly-made fiberglass to every part of the car, and then proceeded to hit every speedbump they could find. The resulting duct-tape/splintered-fiberglass look became a hit, judging by its ubiquity.

Now we’re in danger of this happening again. Where are the affordable sportscars? The MX5 is admirably close in size to the original, but it has gained weight and price. The WRX and Evo cars are phenomenal but not traditional sports cars. Toyota and Subaru are supposedly working on a small, sporty car concept, but with this economy its survival is not guaranteed.

Would a riff on the original Datsun 240z theme save automakers? I doubt it, but an attractive, simple, and affordable sportscar in the lineup certainly couldn’t hurt!

Do You Need All-Wheel-Drive?

Many folks, especially those considering Subaru or Audi cars, ask whether or not they should get an All-Wheel Drive (AWD) vehicle. Really, that depends on what you need to do with your car. If you call me and I find out you live in Vail, CO, it's a no-brainer that AWD will really be useful for you. Calling from Modesto? Well, it gets a little more complicated.

What is AWD? On a really basic level, it is the same thing as four-wheel drive (4WD), which many trucks have. All four wheels are powered by the engine and help move the vehicle. This means that you have twice as much contact surface with the ground, and if it's slippery, then you have a much better grip on the road. If you only had one-wheel drive, and that wheel got stuck or was slipping, then you'd be pretty well stuck. With AWD or 4WD and modern tires, it's pretty unlikely that all 4 wheels will get stuck, and so the other powered wheels can help you get loose and back on the road.

So what is the difference between AWD and 4WD then? That's sort of complicated. Let's just say there are a few main differences (of course there are exceptions too):

1. AWD is usually full-time, or always on. You can't turn it off. 4WD is usually part-time, and you have to stop and engage it.
2. AWD is usually found only on cars or SUVs that are built from modified cars. 4WD is usually for serious offroad trucks.
3. AWD, during normal driving, usually splits the driving power between both axles (20%-80% or 30%-70% are common). 4WD during normal driving is usually just powering the rear wheels.
4. AWD can sense if you are slipping a wheel and put more power back there on the other wheel, the one with grip. With 4WD, you have to manually turn on the 4WD.

What does that mean, really? It means that AWD gives you excellent road grip at all times, especially when you hit some slick pavement that you weren't expecting to. So AWD is a pretty amazing option for places where the roads can get slick.

Are there disadvantages? Yes, AWD adds weight and cost to a car. This means the fuel economy suffers. Also, AWD cars tend to wear out their tires much faster than normal cars. And if you live in L.A., it's not doing you much good because it's always sunny!

Of course, some folks in L.A. go skiing, and some folks in Vail don't drive when it snows. So this is not necessarily as simple a proposition as it looks.

Have a question about whether an AWD car is for you? I'd be happy to help you out, just drop me a line for a free consultation.

Trouble with the Big 3

Everyone who writes about business affairs or cars has been weighing in on the crisis with the Big 3 (Ford, GM, and Chrysler) and their attempt to get bailout money from the federal government. I don’t know if I’m going to add anything to the discussion, but I will say that I read a really great article the other day in the New York Times. It compared the current American automakers’ financial crisis to what happened to the British car industry in the 1970s and 80s.

The article can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/business/economy/18car.html?scp=1&sq=british%20leyland&st=cse

I’m no expert on the business aspect of auto manufacturing, but I’d day that the piece is dead-on. I have no idea what will actually happen if Detroit is allowed to go bankrupt, but it’s clear to me that the bankruptcy reorganization aspect might allow them to do what they have NEVER been able to do themselves – slim down. GM, especially, is a bloated and frustrating organization. Some of their brands compete against each other (Buick and Cadillac). They make hundreds of models. They have few segment leaders (except their trucks). If this were any other business, you’d expect them to slim down, cut off the excess fat or underperforming branches, and focus their energy becoming the best at SOMETHING.

Another meme that auto journalists and industry pundits love is to list which brands GM should leave alone, and which should disappear. I can’t help myself – so here I go with my dream GM line-up:

Chevy for basic family and economy cars, and maybe a compact pickup

GMC for all the trucks and SUVs

Pontiac as the sport and niche brand

Cadillac as the luxury brand

(Which means that GM would need to kill Saab, Saturn, Hummer, and Buick. Except in China, because Buick does really well there. Those Buicks could be rebadged Cadillacs.)

Of course, that leaves a few unanswered questions. If Pontiac becomes the only sport division, who gets the Corvette? The Corvette is, and probably will remain, the GM flagship. If you left the Corvette with Chevy as would be the most likely scenario, then you really couldn’t have any Pontiac be faster or better than the Corvette. And people with Chevy pickups are really brand-loyal, and I think they’d be upset about losing their Chevy-branded trucks. Would they get over it and buy a GMC? I don’t know. But hey, I didn’t make this whole brand mess, GM did. So they need to sort it out. And leaving things as they are is a really stupid idea.

In any event, Congress and the President-elect need to really heed the past lessons and current public outcry, and avoid giving in to the powerful Michigan lawmakers. I think a wake-up call, as hard as it might be to swallow, is going to be good for the U.S. in the long run.

Welcome to Spark!

This is the companion blog to Spark! Auto Consulting (www.sparkautoconsulting.com). I'm going to use this blog to speak my mind about all things car related - useful info and tips, news analysis, reviews, and commentary. Check back often for new (and hopefully interesting) posts!