I want a 4GB version: the Tata NANO

If you follow such things, I’m sure you’ve heard of the Nano, as it’s gotten a lot of press. And thankfully, much of it has actually been devoted to some deep thinking about what a $2,000 car will mean for the super-dense Indian subcontinent. If not, it’s easy to get you to speed: Indian mega-firm Tata’s Nano is a tiny gas-powered car meant to replace the “school of two-wheeled anchovies” thing that India has going on (ie, tons of scooters and small motorcycles). The goal was a cheap enough “real car” so that more Indians would be able to avoid the heavily-polluting, unsafe scooters or over-packed busses. And they delivered: the Nano is going to be around $2500, and it gets a decent 47 MPG and has OK emissions equipment. It’s not really meant to be a green car, and at that price point it might be impossible to make it blow nothing but flowers and happy thoughts out the tailpipe. However, it’s undeniably cheap, and they will sell a ton of them, which has lead to nearly endless jokes about it (like the one in the headline! Aren’t I clever?).

So what will it mean for India? Opinions are really mixed. Some say it will lead to crushing traffic congestion on an already stretched-to-the-limit road system. Predictably, boosters say that it will improve the quality of life for many Indians who can’t afford a larger car, as India’s upwardly mobile classes begin to increase their buying power.

Whatever ends up happening (likely, both extremes will be equally true), I think it’s a good idea that folks are thinking critically about what this could mean for India. The public dialogue here needs to happen, and policy makers need to pay attention.

And to put it in perspective, if a Model T cost $290 in 1925, even by the most conservative conversion measures it would still be approximately $3000 (in 2006 dollars). The least expensive car in the United States is the Kia Rio at $10,800 (as of July 2008). No matter what you think of the Nano in any other sense, that is a startling figure.

[Source: NYT]

Under Pressure: Ford’s Ecoboost, and it’s future

Ford has been talking up their Ecoboost system (really just their name for the new generation of turbocharged engines), which are intended to give the power of a larger engine (like a V8) at the fuel economy of a smaller one (like a V6). For example, Ford already offers a V8 and a V6 version of the Mustang, but with an Ecoboost V6 you could get similar power to a V8 (which would remain the halo motor) and economy closer to the V6, if not better.

What’s the trade-off? As Autofiends.com points out, torque could be the issue. Torque is the twisting, stump-pulling power of a motor. A tractor doesn’t go very fast, but it has a lot of pulling power. Likewise, a Honda S2000 is pretty fast, but it couldn’t pull out a stump. That’s the difference between torque (tractor) and horsepower (S2000). Torque pushes you into your seat when you hit the gas, and lots of Americans like that kind of power delivery. That’s why you can get a Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8, which is basically a 6.1L V8 engine that flings the shoebox it’s stuffed in to 60 MPH in 4.6 seconds, aerodynamics and basic notions of time and space be damned. Who cares if the SRT8 doesn’t actually make any sense when driving it is like being on a rollercoaster wherever you go?

But hey, the advantage is fuel economy, and weight savings. Especially with the addition of a turbo 4-cylinder engine to the Ecoboost line, it could provide for a lot of interesting applications. For example, a 4-cylinder Ecoboost in an SUV like the Explorer (yes, they still make them) could net fuel economy numbers substantially greater than a V8 version, with a tradeoff in towing capacity mostly.

The bottom line is it’s a good idea. There are drawbacks, and turbocharged cars are not for every application. If you tow a boat, get the larger engine. If you simply need to cruise down to the Denny’s while flooring the gas the whole time in order to stimulate your appetite, then an Ecoboost might be in your future.

[Source: autofiends.com]

Multitude of Pun Options: the SHO is back

Trust me, no matter how clever you think the phrase “Fo’ SHO” would be in the byline, it’s not worth my integrity to do it. So there, it’s just in the body, and you can send any hate mail to me through my secretary, Alan Mulally.

So you might know about the Ford Taurus on sale right now, but probably not. Frankly, I’ve only noticed one on the road, and that might be because of it’s DARPA-developed stealth capabilities: complete and utter blandness. Originally the Taurus was the bread-and-butter Ford sedan, outselling all others for a number of years in the 90s, until falling off because of underdevelopment. Instead of injecting some much-needed dollars into the nameplate, they killed it and introduced the Ford Five Hundred, which was a huge underpowered boat that nobody bought. After that proved to be a mistake, they had a brilliant idea: rename it the Ford Taurus again! I forgive you if you don’t remember that earth-shattering day.

The coolest aspect of the original Taurus was the SHO (Super High Output) variant of the original car. A manual transmission and a screaming beast of a V6 (which was designed by Yamaha, which has a history of making really good motors for cars, and helped develop the high-output engine in the Toyota Celica) made it a surprisingly fun, cheap ride. The car would invariably fall apart around the motor, but the motor was a real jewel. It was one of the best V6 motors ever made.

Ford is bringing the SHO back, and it’s a similar formula – big motor in a sedan. This time, it’s a twin-turbocharged Ecoboost V6 making a whopping 355 hp. It will also apparently get 25MPG and is all-wheel drive. The Taurus is now a much bigger car that it was originally, so this is going to be a little bit of a different proposition (more big Mercedes sedan than hot-rod Accord in functionality), but Ford is claiming it will outperform a BMW 550i and be considerably cheaper at about $37,000 MSRP.

My take? It’s still a big bland car, and for $37,000 I would much rather get a Hyundai Genesis or (if I needed AWD) a turbocharged Subaru Legacy. However, the original SHO had a whole heap of die-hard fans, and I’m sure they’ll be happy to forgive it any defects and hoon the living daylights out of it. Plus it’s a cool idea, and using turbocharged V6s instead of big, thirsty V8s is responsible of Ford.

[Source: Jalopnik, Freep.com]

Right next to the giant jar of mayonnaise: a Chinese car?

There was an episode of the Simpsons a while back that involved a giant food big-lots store called CostMo, where Marge buys a 12-pound container of nutmeg. The motto was “Where Shopping Is A Baffling Ordeal.” Our reality has possibly moved closer to merging with the Simpsons universe.

Several blogs are reporting that Chinese automakers, particularly FAW, are looking at how to establish networks to sell their vehicles in North America. The companies interested in importing the cars have hit upon an idea to sell them at big-box stores like Costco and Wal-Mart. One importer, GS Cars, is already doing that in Mexico and apparently moved 4,000 units last year.

My take? Not as crazy as it sounds, but I don’t think the venture has a ton of hope. Brand-quality associations are pretty strong, and selling a car at Wal-Mart might taint the company.

Finally, consider the historical perspective. In the ‘50s Sears-Roebuck sold all sorts of motor vehicles, mostly Vespa and Cushman scooters, under the Allstate brand. They also sold a car in 1951, simply called the “Allstate.” It was in reality a small and cheap economy car made by the Kaiser-Frazier Corporation called the “Henry J” after the chairman of the company. It was cheap, poorly built, and didn’t appeal at all to American sensibilities of the 1950s. Basically, it had a weak marketing message and they didn’t sell, whether badged as Kaisers or as Allstates.

Will the Chinese cars suffer the same fate? I think if the economy recovers, everyone will spend a few dollars more and get a Chevy Aveo or something. I predict that until the Chinese can solidly establish a traditional dealer network, crazy stunts like this won’t move enough cars to make a real difference.

[source: hybridcars.com, wikipedia]

Put your hotness to work: thermoelectric generators

VW claims to have developed a thermoelectric generator that will convert wasted heat from a vehicle’s exhaust into a useable amount of electricity (about 30% of the Golf test car’s needs). They also claim a 5% reduction in fuel consumption because of the reduced load on the engine.

Reality check: is this a crazy idea? Not really, the process actually works. It’s just very, very inefficient. They’ve tried this before, and it’s pretty much not worth it to hook up an expensive thermoelectric device for a few watts of power. Apparently the VW engineers have improved the efficiency, but what’s the tradeoff? I am guessing that the device would be prohibitively expensive.

Good idea for more research and study, though. If you get this device cheap enough, and combine it will other efficiency technologies (example: a plug-in hybrid with regenerative braking, direct-fuel-injection, etc.) you might make a pretty big impact in fuel consumption. Let’s hope the net gains of a device like this outweigh, for example, the energy or harmful substances used to produce it. And these technologies would let us use internal combustion engines for a bit longer. The reality is, gasoline and diesel are pretty useful sources of fuel, from a chemical standpoint – lots of energy per unit, relatively easy to store, and still somewhat plentiful. I’m 100% in favor of getting as much bang for our gallon as possible until the party’s over – and that means wringing out as much efficiency as we can to make the dino fuel last as long as possible.

[Source: gizmag]

I’m not sure whether to be flattered or insulted: the Chevy Spark

OK, it’s no Maserati. In fact, it’s a Daewoo. GM owns Daewoo as a company that is called, unimaginiatively, GM Daewoo. It’s best known product in the US is the Chevy Aveo, which is sold as the Daewoo Kalos overseas.

The Spark is a badge-engineered version of the Daewoo Matiz, and is styled after the Chevy Beat concept. It’s been expected for a couple of years now, but it will only be sold in the US starting in 2011. Of course, GM could really sell models like this in the current economic Chernobyl, so I’m not really clear why they haven’t rushed this thing into high gear to push them onto US saleslots ASAP. I guess GM knows better.

Yeah right.

But anyhow, even though the Aveo is possibly the most awful car ever conceived outside of the Soviet sphere of influence, they sell a lot of them. So the even smaller and more efficient (theoretically) Spark should appeal to a lot of folks. If you have a genetic condition that prevents you from discerning between pleasing and unpleasing design elements, and you are in the market for a cheap car, this might be the one …

[Source: Autoblog]

Are you a plumber AND a Europhile? Have I got a car for you …

You might have seen Dodge Sprinters running around, especially if you’re a tradesperson making deliveries. The tall, narrow design has a ton of room and relatively economical features (read: diesel engine) and is great for tight urban areas. It is actually a Mercedes truck design, intended to fulfill the same niche in Euroland as panel vans (like those big Chevy and Dodge truck-based vans used by cable companies to park in the middle of your street and eat donuts) do in this country. I live near San Francisco and these things make a lot of sense in even big American cities.


Well, a smaller version of the same idea is being introduced by Ford. Called the Transit Connect (a name that makes NO sense to Americans, more on that in a second), it’s a small car-based vehicle, essentially a tiny minivan with a really high ceiling. It’s going to get a 2.0L Duratec motor and get fuel economy in the mid-20s. No diesel option is mentioned yet, but there’s an electric version coming out later this year with a 60-100 mile range, depending on options. OK, so that name. Ford Transit Connect. It sounds like a service where Ford picks you up at the airport and drops you off at your car or something. It’s really a cute way of referring to the Ford Transit, a larger van a lot like the Sprinter. But seriously, dudes, change the name. It’s stupid because we don’t get the big Transit.

This should be a pretty cool little vehicle. I was across the pond for a bit back in my wild college days, and I drove a very similar Renault vanlet around for a while. It was a VERY useful little car. And Ford is going to offer a passenger version, which should (as in Europe) attract a pretty significant number of folks looking for an inexpensive but very functional vehicle. Probably the most similar car in the US to the Transit Connect will be the Honda Element, which doesn’t offer as much interior space or a commercial version.

[Source: Jalopnik, Freep.com]

Jing Qi! China passes US in total auto sales

Despite a worldwide recession that is affecting even China (after significantly growing it’s economy for most of 2008), the Chinese bought about 795,000 new vehicles in January of ’09. That compares to approximately 657,000 vehicles sold in the US.

For whatever it’s worth, this is the first time in history that China has surpassed the US in vehicle sales. But don’t expect me to scream “oh no, we’re going to be overrun by crappy Chinese cars!” I feel like the learning curve isn’t going to be too much steeper for China than it was for Korea. It took the Koreans, particularly Kia and Hyundai, only a decade or two from making bad copies of other cars to being serious rivals to Japanese automakers in terms of quality and design. Want proof? Look at the new Hyundai Genesis. Compare that to a Hyundai Excel from 1990 and you’ll understand that motivated companies with advantages in labor costs, and some help from foreign expertise, will catch up really quick. Realistically, I give the Chinese another 10 years, and possibly less, to make very competitive cars. And I don’t expect the Koreans to give their market position up easily, so expect a price, feature, and quality war in the near future. Chinese automakers like BYD (“Build Your Dreams,” actually one of the better manufacturer names) are already very serious about hybrid technology, too.

That will be good for consumers, trust me. You’ll benefit in the long run.

[Source: Freep.com. Bnet Autos]

Post-New-Year's Hangover - the Worst Cars of 2008

In the last blog (a few days back … sorry!), I picked out my choices for some of the best cars of last year. This time I’m picking some bad ones. So bad, in fact, that I couldn’t even think of clever titles for the categories.

Worst overall: Chrysler Sebring / Dodge Avenger. These heinous twins of darkness represent, to my mind, the worst of what modern manufacturers have to offer. They really have no redeeming qualities, other than that they are very attractive to rental outfits. Other than possibly inducing nostalgia for cars from the former USSR, I’d avoid these two like the plague.

Most in need of redesign: Ford Focus. Introduced in 1999 as a 2000 model, this dinosaur has thus been around for NINE model years without a significant mechanical redesign. It was a nifty car when it was new, especially in terms of styling. The current model, on the other hand, is sort of like that infamous lipstick on a pig. Why do I care? American auto manufacturers need to realize that we Americans don’t deserve to be treated so badly. The small car segment is really hot, and instead of investing in the product to make it fresh (like they did with the European-market Focus, which shares a platform with the cool Mazda3 and Volvo C30), they’ve let it linger on in a sort of pathetic Marlon Brando situation. The competition is better, so don’t waste your time on the old news Focus.

Most disappointing: BMW 1 / Smart ForTwo (tie). I had high hopes for both of these cars, but they are flops. The BMW 1 was supposed to be a resurrection of the classic BMW 2002 coupe: light, fun, sporty. Instead it is expensive, and almost as heavy as the larger 3-series. Why give up the back seat room? Get a 3-series. And the Smart! Don’t get me started. With a painful ride and the herky-jerkiest drivetrain since the Yugo graced these shores, it’s really a bad car. Sure, it’ll park lengthwise against the curb, but you’ll never want to get in it to move it.

Least Sexy: Buick Lucerne. It kind of looks like a lungfish with four eyes, and it probably appeals to your Great Aunt Lucy. Trust me, if you’re south of 60 years old, your date is going to bail. Sure, you can say that it isn’t too bad for a GM car, it’s quiet and well-built. But honestly, a coffin is quiet and well-built, but save it for when you’re dead.

New Year's List - Best of 2008

Happy New Years! As is the trend at this time of year, I decided to take a semi-serious look back at some of the best and worst cars of 2008. Let me start with the the serious ones.

Best Cars of 2008
Best domestic: Chevy Malibu / Saturn Aura. Even though GM is in desperate trouble and has had difficulty competing with the Accord and Camry, the Malibu/Aura twins are leaps forward that can only be measured in astronomical units. Attractive, well-featured, and interesting (unusual for a midsize), they should be the inspiration for a resurgent American car industry. Will it happen ... ?

Best foreign: Honda Fit / Hyundai Genesis (tie). At opposite ends of the spectrum, these two cars represent class-busters. They do their job as advertised and better than anything else in their category. Innovative and good values.

Most surprising: Hyundai Genesis coupe. Another Hyundai on the top cars list? Give credit where credit is due. This rear-wheel drive coupe will give the Inifiniti G37 coupe a run for its money (while still underselling it for thousands, and with an available V8). Hyundai might start shaking off the budget-car image if they keep making interesting cars like this.

Best Car to Show Off In: BMW 335i coupe. Need to make a statement, but not overdo it? With a nearly perfect motor, good looks, and BMW handling, you can flaunt it without being a pretentious jerk.

Best Car to Shamelessly Show Off In: Bentley Flying Spur. BMW too subtle for you? This Bentley is going to take care of that. And if you have to ask you can't afford it.

The "Anime Fan Boy Fantasy" Award: Nissan GTR. The hometown hero in Japan comes to the US and elicits drools from every 14-26 year old guy who ever owned a Playstation.

Sexiest Car: Maserati Granturismo. Just look at it. Don't really have to elaborate with this one.

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.

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.