Confessions of an Autoholic

Confession #61: The loss of Top Gear as I know it stings like the loss of a show about gays

2015-03-25T22:49:00.001-04:00

I hesitate to write about Jeremy Clarkson. There was something inevitable about his lashing out and subsequent firing from the BBC and Top Gear. But the fact the effective end of the car show as I was introduced to it came almost at the same time as the cancellation of Looking, the show I loved to hate. And suddenly, two shows I loved were done.

Looking cast, season 1 (via HBO)

Looking was boring as hell but struck this painful chord just at the wrong time. The second season, I thought, was legitimately good dramedy TV. It was talking about relevant gay relationship issues, issues that are marginalized on other shows if they're talked about at all. Plenty of critics, good writers, complained it was too boring and demanded more – or something more representative of gays who didn't live in San Francisco. But Looking added something to the TV landscape. Not perfect, but definitely representative of something that wasn't represented at the time. I'm sad to see it reduced to an HBO movie rather than being given another season to find itself (and hopefully free of Kevin).

Top Gear is just different. Jeremy Clarkson is the world's oldest toddler, a diva as someone I saw call him. He got a way with far too much at the BBC. But trying to revive Top Gear without him didn't work in the past, and it won't work again.

I'll never forget when I discovered Top Gear. It was a YouTube clip of their disastrous caravan trip and I mentioned it to a friend at school who was an even bigger fan at the time. After watching lots of pedantic clips and reading emotionless stories about cars and, crucially, why we all like cars.

Crucially, Top Gear made me feel like it was OK to talk about cars with people who didn't know/care/like cars. It was just good TV, entertaining on a number of levels. Which a far broader audience can get comfortable with. The chemistry Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May had is rare, and the production values were great full stop. There were celebrities in terrible cars, talking about cars. It didn't matter if you weren't typically a fan of cars, British shows or "manly" talk shows – Top Gear evolved into something for everyone.

Michael Fassbender and Stig (Photo: BBC Top Gear via Newspress)

At least until it became a show about middle-aged guys blowing shit up. Which is tiring after a while. Or middle-aged guys talking about how Britain used to be great. It would've been just as bad if they kept talking about how America was great. The less Top Gear became about insightful commentary about cars, the less relevant it became. And the more Clarkson became known for his archaic statements about Mexicans and gays and other nations, the more embarrassed I became for blindly being a fan of his show. Plenty of us car fans grew tired of Clarkson, but persisted because this was the best or only car show. We should've demanded better. We should've demanded better of Clarkson.

I never quit watching, but I was surprised when Top Gear did an hour about the love of cars, rather than the love of caveman habits. The ride has ended and Top Gear will never again be the Top Gear I fell in love with. I was ready for that.

James May, Richard Hammond and Jeremy Clarkson (Photo: Top Gear via Newspress)

And I can live with that, because I have my memories about how the wit and chemistry of Clarkson, Hammond and May gave me the confidence to write about cars in a way that I'd like to read – not how those who have mechanical knowledge like to, the way some auto writers think we should all be producing work like we write technical manuals. Some of us like to write about the car culture, the way cars make us feel and the way they've affected our lives.

Thanks to the many ways work can be published and distributed today, I'm confident we'll have another Top Gear, with great hosts and a great writing staff and great production. It'll be different, but not necessarily worse. Just like a successor to Looking will happen one day, I can wait for a new car show to change my life.

Confession #60: Better car dealers are not made with better decor

2015-01-26T20:11:00.000-05:00

Photo: Creative Commons/Flickr

How important is a marble floor, free coffee and some nice chairs? Or an off-road test track and consistent branding? And is any of this important for your local car dealership?

Not if the dealers are hard to get to and still difficult to deal with once you get there.

2016 Cadillac CTS-V (Photo: Cadillac)

Cadillac is in the midst of a serious product revival that has brought them critical acclaim and some stealthy new image to combat the big German luxury brands. If only sales didn't suck. The dealers are believed to be a problem, so GM is going to encourage facility upgrades mostly where Cadillac isn't the only brand being sold. And those upgrades will, according to the press release, "feature exclusive Cadillac consumer touch points, highly trained sales and service staff and luxury amenities."

Your typical premium-ness, then.

Photo: Creative Commons/Flickr

While Cadillac has considerably fewer dealers since it began culling in GM's 2009 reorganization, it roughly triple the amount of outlets competitors such as BMW, Lexus and Mercedes-Benz have. That should put them at an advantage, if those 900 or so dealers were any good. While Cadillac apparently has 200 stand-alone retailers, the remaining 700 soon-to-be-boutiques tend to be grouped with longtime GM dealers and staffed with people more used to selling and servicing a load of less prestigious brands.

Given my experience at some Cadillac dealers back when Saab was still around, and hearing other people's experiences, I'm not at all confident a new boutique concept will change much. Interior redecoration usually isn't enough to change a culture where sales people think you're there to serve them, not the other way around.

It's been almost three decades since brands like Acura, Infiniti, Lexus and Saturn came onto the scene and started to shake up customer service and facilities to prove car buying didn't have to be a horrible process. Some of those principles have spread across the industry when it became clear people would be loyal to a brand sold by nice dealers with nice buildings and nice furniture.

Photo: Creative Commons/Flickr

But the "nice dealers" memo turned more into the "nice dealerships" mandate. And in the last 25 years or so, it's led to massive consolidations where two or more neighborhood dealerships would merge into one correctly branded megastore along a major highway, covering multiple acres. Which would make sense if car sales weren't cyclical (most recent example is Volkswagen's bitter U.S. dealer population) or if there was an infinite amount of land or no such thing as city building ordinances. And furthermore, I've been to several Acura, Lexus, Saturn, etc. dealerships where the people were nothing short of dickish. No matter how sparkling the water.

In talking to non-enthusiasts, the feeling on dealerships is that proximity still rules over actual quality. If you're not in a rural area, having to drive more than 30 miles to get to a dealer is considered a hassle, and a worry if you have to get your car towed for a warranty repair.

Short story: A friend of mine recently went to go buy out the lease on his Volvo. The dealer he got it from had closed. He avoided his local dealer because they were idiots when he went to go buy the car in the first place. So he went to the next closest one, about 50 miles away, to discover they were closing down for good right in front of him. So he drove another 20 miles away to a dealer in LA that was actually still open. An Audi starts to look tempting when you pass four of their dealerships to get to the closest Volvo showroom.

The local car dealer in downtown has long been replaced by the big-box store a ways out of town, its hokey TV ads made fun of for the last time. But clearly the culture hasn't changed. And wouldn't automakers be better served by dealers who understand the product and the customers, rather than ones who merely change their appearance on the surface?

It's great that Cadillac is finally accepting that it has a large dealer body, but it's reasonable to expect it'll lose some franchisees who are unwilling to spend thousands of dollars on an interior remodel to keep selling the few cars they do. Cadillac, however, is in the unique position to leverage the huge GM network of dealers, so owners can take their Escalade to a Chevy dealer in a pinch and get the same parts.

Seriously, how hard is it to sell a car to a person?

Confession #59: The SUV-sedan is the strangest combination that won't go away

2015-01-08T13:52:00.004-05:00

Most wagon fans have come to terms as much as possible with jacked-up wagons, if only as a way of keeping the breed alive somehow. With successes like the Subaru Outback, you can't really argue with it – and it's about all of the SUV many, many people need.

But the offshoot of this wagon-with-cladding trend is the curious sedan-with-cladding, the likes of which haven't been seen since 2007. Thanks to Volvo and the S60 Cross Country, it's back and as charmingly confusing as ever.

Volvo S60 Cross Country (Photos: Volvo Cars)

Volvo is launching this S60 derivative at the 2015 Detroit Auto Show, just two months after it showed the V60 Cross Country in LA. Volvo constantly points out that it's had a jacked-up wagon in its lineup since 1997, but that the S60 Cross Country is, "the first premium sedan with the same level of capability and rugged design cues of the renowned Cross Country wagons."

Subaru might like to have a word with you, Volvo.

1999 Subaru Legacy SUS (Photo: Subaru)

Around the same time the first Cross Country arrived, Subaru made small cars with a loyal New England following. The Legacy Outback wagon sold well enough that Subaru tested the waters in places like Maine and New Hampshire with a Legacy sedan riding on the Outback's lifted suspension. Thus the Legacy SUS (Sport Utility Sedan, obviously) was born in 1999. Maybe it was still too ahead of its time.

Even among the cold-climate set, I have no idea who would pick an Outback sedan over an Outback wagon. Maybe the loaded versions with leather and gold wheels and driven by Paul Hogan were enough to sway some people that they were making less of a utilitarian statement. I think I can count on my hands how many Outback sedans I've seen, even after living in New England, and still have fingers left over. Yet this variant lasted until 2007 and covered three generations of Legacy.

AMC Eagle Two-Door Sedan (Photo: AMC)

But the SUS wasn't the first. As is typical of these type of car-SUV hybrids, the AMC Eagle is to thank. Considered to be the inventor of the SUV-wagon-thing we know today, the Eagle line also included the far less popular sedan. Just over 43,000 two and four-door Eagle sedans were sold between 1980 and 1987, to people who thought a padded vinyl roof and four-wheel drive went together somehow. But AMC dealers in the Northwest and New England were undoubtedly happy to sell something that wasn't a Renault Alliance. And now Eagle sedans have been immortalized by both Subaru and Volvo. That's a good thing, I think.

Nowhere is Volvo saying this elevated sedan will save its bacon in the U.S. – that's the new XC90's job. It's incremental business and a way to get a fraction of customers to spend a couple grand more on bigger tires and different trim. With the S60 Cross Country, Volvo now offers a jacked-up and cladded version of every sedan, wagon and hatch it currently makes. In an age of four-door SUV "coupes," these things don't look so silly. Maybe the Eagle just came 35 years too early.

It also would be great if they still made the C70 convertible, because what the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet proved is that some people want a high-riding convertible.

AMC Eagle Sundancer (Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Christopher Ziemnowicz)

Actually, I guess the Eagle Sundancer proved that, too.

Confession #58: Mercedes now makes the wildest hot hatches, or whatever they're called

2014-11-25T17:35:00.001-05:00

Look, Daimler. I don't know where you're hiding the old Mercedes-Benz, but I'm starting not to care. I longed for the days of the stoic W124s, but Stuttgart has embraced its lunatic side and it's having startlingly seductive results.

Case in point is the newly announced Mercedes CLA45 AMG Shooting Brake. Dear God, it's pretty much everything I've ever wanted.

Mercedes-Benz CLA45 AMG Shooting Brake (Photos: Mercedes-Benz)

What started as the somewhat blobby CLA "four-door coupe" got a longer roof with a slick shape and then was stuffed with the bonkers 2.0-liter turbo four/AWD combo AMG is putting in small Mercs. And the mean body kit and black wheels help matters even more. The Shooting Brake is a hot wagon, er... hatchback.

It reminds me of the time they made the GLA, what's called a crossover but is so clearly an A-Class hatchback in much taller shoes and then called a "light truck" by the EPA. A stupid marketing ploy, sure, but I like it because we can't get the A-Class in the U.S. and it's kind of weird and cute. And also because there's bonkers GLA45 AMG with its silly roof spoiler. It's goofy and it knows it.

Mercedes-Benz W124 promotional photo, c.1984

Mercedes used to make stately sedans with hood ornaments and diplomatic styling, and then asked the marketing people to sex up the image with photography and sport packages. That's not the case anymore. Mercedes makes wild cars and, like them or not, take risks. Even Subaru won't do a spoiler like the one on the GLA anymore, and I have to love the Germans doing that to their hot hatch.

Volvo Concept Estate, a modern shooting brake. (Photo: Volvo Cars)

As I see someone from Mercedes thinking of running me over with a G-Wagen for calling the GLA and CLA Shooting Brake hatchbacks, let me explain. A "shooting brake" historically has two doors and Mercedes has already bludgeoned the word "coupe" with this "four-door coupe" nonsense. Calling the CLA Shooting Brake a wagon isn't right, either. A wagon implies it puts practicality first, and making it more upright would've spoiled the shape. So it has kind of a liftback, like on a hatchback?

Words are hard for automakers and I'm moving on.

I'm also moving on from the fact the CLA Shooting Brake won't come to America. Really, I'm kind of glad because rich wagon fans would be less inclined to buy the beautifully awesome E63 Wagon, and the U.S. shouldn't be deprived of its V8 madness and enormous cargo capacity. But I am happy others can have a little CLA "wagon" powered by a turbo with a four-cylinder engine tacked on.

What doesn't make me happy is that the A/B/CLA/GLA is not really the company's finest hour in terms of quality. Sitting in both a GLA45 and an electric B-Class just a few days ago made me disappointed at how little Mercedes must think of their entry-level buyers. The interior is depressingly cheap to the touch. And owners say the CLA is badly made, too.

I don't mind because, again, I'm glad it exists in the first place. The CLA45 Shooting Brake has no rational reason to have been created, so I must respect Mercedes for building it. It's flawed, but somehow that becomes a character trait to go with its overall lunacy. Mercedes has made its own Fiat 500 Abarth and I've fallen completely in love.

And for that comparison, I really will be run over by that G-Wagen.

Confession #57: You can laugh at Peugeot-Citroen's US plans until they actually return

2014-10-06T17:31:00.001-04:00

Citroen DS5 (Photo: Citroen)

Please forgive those of us on the Internet for getting giddy over the phrases "PSA" and "US re-entry" in the same headline. Seeing the things French automakers are putting on the auto show stands in Europe and China these days makes us American car fans envious.

After these latest quotes from brand exec Yves Bonnefort pushing PSA's DS premium line of Citroens, there's a glimmer of hope we may finally get French cars in the US sometime next decade. Or maybe it's just another false start to trick the auto scribes and bolster the pessimists.

Whatever the reality, importing a line of upscale DS cars doesn't sound totally out of the realm of possibility in this age of premium brands for the masses.

Citroen SM (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Citroen hasn't officially sold cars in the States since 1974, when our bumper and suspension regulations didn't go well with the gorgeous SM's looks and technology. It was always a company that brought its gorgeously weird cars over at sky-high prices and appealed to those who loved its Frenchness. Citroen was never going to be a major player in the States.

Peugeot, meanwhile, stuck it out until 1991 as a purveyor of midsize French cars like the 505 that straddled a fine line between mass-market and premium. More like an Audi, Saab and Volvo rival, and think about where those three brands are now. Their last attempt came in 1989 with the Peugeot 405, a midsize sedan and wagon that proved popular pretty much everywhere in the world except the US, where only brave souls bought them and hung on to them.

Santa Barbara News-Press review of Peugeot 405 Sportwagon that briefly features me; August 24, 1990

The 405 went up against cars like the popular Mazda 626 and much more popular Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. But with a limited dealer network and a history of unreliability, Peugeot could only appeal to coastal upmarket types. And even then, Volvo at the time had a lock on that modest market.

The reduction of the Peugeot family's influence in January with the emergence of Chinese automaker Dongfeng and the French government's involvement in PSA had to have been the biggest wake-up call that its "Europe First" approach was simply going to kill it in the end. And even banking on China to save the day isn't a safe bet anymore. If PSA wants to be a global manufacturer, it's right in believing it can't ignore North America anymore. Even Fiat came back after 28 years in exile.

But it realized this too late for mass-market Peugeot and Citroen brands. DS, however, is a new brand, and a somewhat exclusive one at that. Audi is fast on its way to selling 200,000 cars a year in the US, not at all a niche player. And BMW and Mercedes are trying to find ways to cut configurations and personalizations on their models to boost profitability and sales. None of those moves are particularly premium.

That's where DS can come in.

Citroen DS5 Limited Edition Pure Pearl interior (Photo: Citroen UK)

A DS appeals to people who could have had an Audi 10 years ago because everyone in the neighborhood had a BMW, and they wanted something more stylish. Aside from the diesel-electric hybrid in the DS5, none of these cars are particularly innovative under the skin. But they ooze class and style on what you see and touch. This is in sharp contrast to the old, square Peugeots that were square for square's sake. Best of all, the DS line is mostly comprised of small premium hatches and small-to-midsize crossovers. And that tends to be what buyers of upscale branded cars want these days.

Bonnefort admits there are has modest expectations for a possible North American line, looking at just 30 markets, 20 of which will be in the US. But you can picture one of their DS showrooms in New York, LA, San Francisco and Miami like you could in Paris, London and Beijing. As BMW did with Mini, a carefully managed roster of dealers and tight allocation could make the DS line desirable. And actually paying attention to what an American audience likes this time could stop things from ending badly as they did before with Peugeot. The DS line has China-specific cars, and those cars like the DS 5LS and DS 6WR could find a profitable niche in the US – and made in China for all we know. Let's see how Volvo fares with that.

That appeal is important when premium brands are trying to be accessible while still maintaining desirability. With DS, there's a chance for the company to say, "This isn't for everyone."

But that's a crap tagline, so don't say that exactly.

Confession #56: At last, we'll call it a Cadillac instead of a CTS

2014-09-24T19:10:00.002-04:00

Photo: Cadillac

Yes, it's hard to name cars. Lots of names are taken these days. And then there's this need to build brand identity, which has brought the luxury car world firmly into the realm of alphanumerics.

Welcome to the second round of the alphanumeric era, where everything's made up and you shouldn't get used to the names.

Cadillac's third leader in two years is Johan de Nysschen. After doing good work at Audi and Infiniti to raise the prominence and focus of those luxury brands, he's tasked with turning Cadillac's line of good cars into a line of good cars that actually sell. So on Tuesday, Cadillac announced it was moving its headquarters to New York City. On Wednesday, it said it would change the name of its cars. It's been a busy week.

As explored a couple months ago, Cadillac has the problem of a critically lauded lineup of cars that just aren't selling, with its old crossover doing most of the heavy work. It's the really sore point in GM's lineup, especially considering this is their most prestigious brand. To add to that prestige, we've known Cadillac would finally get a rear-wheel drive sedan to do battle with the likes of the Mercedes S-Class.

And Tuesday, we found out this luxurious new flagship would be christened the CT6.

Dashing hopes Cadillac would once again honor its heritage with a classic name, the CT6 news also came with the revelation the brand would ditch the 13-year-old CTS and 3-year-old ATS names for CT-somethings when those models are up for renewal.

de Nysschen was notably at the helm of Infiniti when a couple years ago they changed the name of all their vehicles to start with Q. It's tough to follow the logic right now.

And it really doesn't help Infinitis all look sort of like the same car, just inflated to different levels. When your top marketing official can't get the names of the cars straight during a presentation, as I've observed, that isn't a reassuring sign customers will understand either.

But then that's beside the point. Marketers push for alphanumerics as a way to bolster brand identity. They don't want you to say you drive an Eldorado, you drive a Cadillac. So you have to wonder if the CTS name was starting to get too much equity for them. And how much longer will the Escalade nameplate escape the alphanumeric machine?

Pretty much everyone in the luxury field goes with alphanumerics, and they're still not satisfied with the way the names line up. Mercedes, for example, redid its structure back in 1994, and they've never been content with the way coupes were designated. Now they're realigning their SUV names, in the process ditching the M-Class they've had since 1997 and going with "GLE-Class." Much more catchy.

Land Rover had a similar problem with the Range Rover. No one valet parked a Land Rover Range Rover HSE, they had a Range Rover. No one knew what an LR2, LR3 or LR4 was, but they knew what a Freelander and Discovery were based on the line of them waiting for the service department to open.

But instead of retreating on further senseless alphanumerics, Land Rover went for words and made Range Rover a healthy sub-brand. In fact, it's actually like Tata's Jaguar Land Rover division should be called Jaguar Land Rover Range Rover.

Land Rover Discovery Sport (Photo: Land Rover)

And with its newly shown Land Rover Discovery Sport, the company is trying to make Discovery happen as a sub-brand. Right off the bat, Discovery Sport is a name you can remember. LR2 never was, which didn't bode well for that model.

And the lines make sense. Both Discovery and Range Rover have natural model progressions, each having the namesake as the top model in the range, with a "Sport" added to the next one down. Q50 and Q70, CT6 and CT5 and 4 and 3 make some sense to those who write about cars every day. To buyers?

Let's not forget, though, that Cadillac has the basics down. It has a real chance to challenge the European opposition – maybe even have a decent chance of selling in Europe if they ever get diesels, right-hand drive and a dealer network. Its problem now is its marketing funk, and is re-naming your lineup a good way to go to fix that?

And forget about them ever calling this new sedan Fleetwood or Brougham or anything like that – too land yacht-ish. But calling it the Sixty Special might have worked. That's sort of an alphanumeric.

Confession #55: The Jaguar XE needs to be special so we can never say X-Type again

2014-09-09T22:17:00.000-04:00

Jaguar XE (Photos: Jaguar)

The Jaguar XE is supposed to make you think of the future. The company wants you to look at it and see your future car, more than anything else. But it represents the company's future volume brand, and reassuring its future altogether.

Which is unfortunate because that's exactly what they wanted you to think 13 years ago with another small sedan that began with an X. The Jaguar X-Type was that compact BMW 3-series-fighter that was supposed to propel Jaguar into the mainstream luxury world once and for all. And it's mentioned in just about everything written about the XE this week. I quit counting after about a bazillion.

Would anyone remember the X-Type if the auto-writing world didn't bother to mention it every now and then?

Photo: Jaguar

I'd bet on "probably not."

When the Jaguar X-Type was launched in 2001, it had a fair amount of stuff going for it. There were two good V6s on offer, a sub-$35,000 price tag and a clear lineage to Jaguar's look of the time.

What everyone in the auto world focused on from day one was that the X-Type didn't have the expected Jaguar pedigree. Too much of it came from a Ford Mondeo, and was the pinnacle of the parts sharing people didn't want happening when Ford took over the company. Ironically, a small, all-wheel drive luxury sedan is what a lot of people will buy from anyone these days.

Maybe Chris Isaak had a point with his song that got roped into the despondent-beach-weekend of an ad that launched the X-Type. A small Jag is a great idea and you really want to fall in love with it. But the X-Type didn't let that happen.

We would've stopped talking about the X-Type after its demise at the end of last decade were it not for the fact it was Jaguar's biggest black mark since its quality snafus of the late '70s.

And frankly, I would've been fine if Jaguar never entered this huge segment at all. I love that Jaguar of today insists on being different – no, special. They put an absurd wing on the back of the XFR-S. They have all the rising vents and gear knobs and stuff like purple velvet in the XJ's glovebox. BMW, Lexus, Audi, even Cadillac doesn't do stuff like that. So it's great Jaguar reminds the world its cars are special, as well as good.

But the XE is more of the same Jaguar of today. There's no way you can make all of these compact sedans not look anything like each other, but the XE should bear most of its references to the XF's look. It's like a pinched and toned and leaner version of that sedan, introduced almost seven years ago and still looking good.

Jaguar is reportedly gunning for much less than 100,000 units per year of the XE, about 63,000 at its peak. That's a sliver of what BMW does with the 3-series every year. And that's great, because the last thing the XE needs to be is common. Before even driving it, its main calling card is that it looks special. Its aluminum-intensive build is very special for this class. And anything special is starting to get rare in this class of car.

The company keeps saying they're going after "the iPad generation" with this car, but let's face facts: the XE, like all current Jags, are for people of all ages who like really beautiful, fast things. And those who call electronic maladies "charming."

That may have been the problem with the X-Type all along – it wasn't very special, but still came with all the trouble. And if it weren't looked upon terribly, it wouldn't be remembered at all. The XE doesn't have to be Earth-shaking. It just needs to be special enough to drive so we can never say the words Jaguar X-Type again.

But I can still hope it's breathtaking.

Confession #54: The new Volvo XC90 is slick, not outrageous – and that's perfect

2014-08-26T13:17:00.003-04:00

New Volvo XC90 (Photos: Volvo Cars)

I really hoped Volvo would stick some splashes of orange trim on the production 2016 Volvo XC90, like they had on the Volvo Concept XC Coupe. I really hoped the new XC90 would have tweed upholstery and orange seatbelts like the Volvo Concept Estate.

The new XC90 doesn't have any of these things.

Probably the most interesting thing on the totally new XC90 crossover will be the crystal gearshift and little Swedish flag tags on the seats. Many of us are disappointed after the months and months of teasing, but I think I'm fine with this new Volvo. In an age of tacky LEDs and vents and pointless swooshes everywhere in car design, this is a clean, simple design. It's a Volvo, and that's a good thing here.

Volvo is busy blowing up its Ford-era playbook right now and losing this big-shouldered, rugged look its had for roughly 15 years or so. New Volvos are sleeker, smoother and more subtle. It's so surprisingly upmarket that it's why the XC90 comes off as quiet rather than the quietly outrageous (V60 Polestar).

The first full photos of this new XC90 also show why launch colors are so important. The first picture most of us saw Tuesday morning was this beige one with smaller wheels. It's just not this car's best look. Beige isn't is color and those wheels don't fill up the arches enough, and the color diminishes the "Thor's Hammer" LEDs in the headlights.

It gets worse in this concept-car white ones they've pictured. I'm sure white is a great color for the Volvo in person, but in photos, they accentuate the slab sides of it – necessary of course, in a big three-row SUV meant for carrying people. But it smacks very much of BMW X5 and three kinds of VW/Audi here. That's not the originality we were hoping for. But the black XC90 looks seriously good.

All that said, it's not ugly, not even slightly. It's tastefully honest for what is, after all, a luxury family hauler. And that's why the new XC90's story is all about efficiency – inside, outside and under the hood.

The interior is beautifully simple, yet the seats continue to do tricks and fold flat. That ingenious built-in booster seat in the second row is still there, even if the split tailgate is apparently absent.

And then there's the fact the interior itself is freaking gorgeous overall. I just want to touch everything in it.

Volvo has made a lot of really nice interiors lately, but none have been quite so detailed and use such visibly fine materials as this XC90's. The efficiency extends to the controls, as everyone crows about the Tesla-like touchscreen in the dash, it looks like there are still enough physical switches to keep simple tasks simple.

I love the idea of a big, seven-seat SUV like this being powered by a 316-horse 2.0-liter supercharged and turbocharged four, as most Americans will probably think it's at least a V6. Almost as much as I like the idea of that superbocharged engine being mated with an electric motor to deliver 400 horsepower. A plug-in hybrid Volvo has to be one of the most responsible and practical cars out there.

Now that German luxury sedans have a million driving modes and are covered in big grilles and try to talk about off-road performance in the same breath as driving excitement, Volvo's comparatively simple take on efficient luxury is refreshing. And it's there that I can respect and understand why the outside is so understated. BMW and Mercedes don't do this, and I'm not even sure they know how to anymore.

A brown body kit would liven things up and optional orange seatbelts should be offered, but I can't really complain. If the XC90 drives as good as it looks, and the sub-$50,000 price for even a T6 version seems fair if even base versions have the nice interiors – and things like navigation and all-wheel drive will be standard. It deserves to do well for Volvo.

Look at the now-40-year-old Volvo 240 and you can see how its clean lines have made it timeless. It's a similar thing going with the XC90, the upscale family hauler of this decade. And it's so easy to respect, I'm sure these will be well-loved in 2025 when they mostly smell like kids and dogs.

Confession #53: The thrill of an Acura isn't what's on the outside

2014-08-19T09:01:00.001-04:00

2015 Acura TLX (Photo: Acura)

For a while now, people (myself included) had written off Acura as a maker of extremely competent sedans that didn't shout about themselves. Since the high-water marks of the mid-2000s, they took to making cars with bizarre styling that were kind of ho-hum overall.

And since then, Acura made a name for itself by building the insanely popular MDX crossover. Then they made its little brother RDX all V6 and conventional and sales took off. So why even bother with sedans anymore when the market is shifting to crossovers anyway?

Acura apparently bothered with the TLX, their new midsize sedan. Except for its overall appearance.

Acura TLX (Photo: Acura)

For years, we'd heard the successor to the once-popular TSX and TL sedans would be more fun and edgier. Then we saw the TLX "Concept" in Detroit this year and it was just a snooze-fest of marketing words.

Then we saw the real TLX in New York a couple months later and it was another 17 minutes of noise and aggressive driving videos and promises. The car itself looks like a squished Acura RLX in front, joined by various generations of Lexus IS in the back. It's not ugly, but the newness is lacking.

Between all of the talk of "dynamic" and the need for coffee, I suspected there was something good under the TLX during the New York press conference. The specs and the tech in it looked like they'd add up to something good. Then they said the magic phrase: "Don't let the power-to-weight ratio fool you."

I love a car that isn't all about 0-60 times, and I love Acura admits that they are giving us by and large the same kind of engine that was in the old TSX – a sweet 2.4-liter four with 200-ish horsepower, but mated this time to a clever dual-clutch auto. And it's apparently the pick of the bunch, which will no doubt confuse shoppers.

I'm seeing the TLX ad featuring Sid Vicious-meets-Frank Sinatra nonstop right now. I laugh when the word "thrill" is used to describe an Acura sedan, but after seeing it a few dozen times it isn't quite as silly now.

Except when you get to the end of the ad and there's this mash of Japanese design from the last decade.

2009 Acura TL

Historically, Acuras have never been styling statements. When they tried, they got the Power Plenum grille that sabotaged TL sales and made every car they made look buck-toothed. Sure, they're giving the lineup googly headlights now, but the design has shifted far too much into the restraint category. And that undermines any interesting traits they want to promote. Who is this car for, then?

Acura customers will like the TLX. Honda customers will like it, too. But who else will, after all the technical explaining is done?

Perhaps instead of "It's that kind of thrill," Acura could've been honest and said "It's some kind of thrill." Ad people will scoff at that, but hey, the truth works sometimes. Those of us who nerd out on technical stuff will be amused, but I don't think that's the kind of thrill they were talking about.

Confession #52: It should be easy to make a Subaru Outback

2014-08-02T19:27:00.000-04:00

2015 Subaru Outback (Photo: Subaru)

The Subaru Outback is an important vehicle, and a surprising one. It has succeeded where the AMC Eagle and Matra Rancho failed. It's a wagon masquerading as an SUV that people actually take seriously.

It didn't happen overnight, but in about 20 years the Outback has gone from a niche vehicle to being Subaru's second-best seller and catapulting the brand itself from a quirky bit player in the US to a less quirky, significant player in the US. Subaru keeps having its "best month ever" for US sales they could really find a new way to say that.

But it's partly due to the Outback, a reasonably simple concept. So why can't anyone else make a serious rival?

The Outback was created out of necessity during the SUV boom of the mid-'90s. Subaru had no rival to the best-selling Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee (and Honda Passport? Is this the only commercial not from Honda to mention the Passport?), but they knew a Legacy wagon was much more practical for what most people were using SUVs for in the mid-'90s.

2013 Toyota Venza (Photo: Toyota)

Toyota should've been able to do it with the Venza. After all, it's essentially a Camry wagon, and has one of the most mainstream and inoffensive cars as its base. Being conceived in the mid-2000s, though, designers felt the need to festoon it with 20-inch wheels, huge pillars and a stupid name. Misaligned panels and a lack of improvements haven't helped.

In New England, the Venza is being marketed directly at the Outback, which is arguably more common than even a Camry in these parts. Toyota would like to think the Venza is more stylish, but to my eyes that's not strictly true. The Outback doesn't exactly have style, but the Venza isn't a looker, either.

Although it's probably more attractive than the Honda Crosstour. Again, what happened to just making an Accord wagon?

Chances are you don't see a Crosstour too often, unless you live near a major Honda facility. Last year, fewer than 17,000 were sold. Compare that to the almost 36,000 Venzas Toyota moved. Oh, and the 11,768 Subaru Outbacks that were sold just in July 2014.

2013 Honda Crosstour (Photo: Honda)

The Crosstour is even more compromised than the Venza and it still looks like a super-puffy AMC Spirit. A fully optioned one is more than $37,000 and still doesn't offer the same features a new Accord does. No wonder it isn't being pitched awkwardly as an Outback fighter anymore.

There is hope Honda has seen the light. The latest news, from Automotive News in fact, is that the company is seeking an Audi Allroad-type to replace the Crosstour as soon as next year. Especially now that the Acura TSX Wagon is dead.

I do miss the days of the smaller, more wagon-y Outbacks that weren't nearly as bloated looking. But I can't argue with the success of the most recent versions and the fact it's a really appealing car for plenty of people who buy much larger crossovers.

Subaru's had it right all this time. We just didn't pay attention while Paul Hogan was selling them.

Confession #51: There's never going to be a VW GTI like the first VW GTI

2014-07-29T17:08:00.002-04:00

Photo: VW

For the third week in a row, Consumer Reports' Talking Cars segment has decided to bring up the 2015 Volkswagen GTI. It's not a car I thought of as being particularly controversial, considering it sticks to a similar format as its immediate predecessors.

But CR has made it controversial because of remarks by one of its auto guys who thinks it's a "thumbs down." Why is that? He thinks it's just not fun enough, not engaging enough and, crucially, not enough like the original GTI.

I think he's going to be waiting a long time for VW to make another Mk 1 GTI.

I've mentioned I own a Mk 6 GTI and have driven the Mk 7 GTI. Both are such complete cars. You can quibble over some details that irritate, and there are some you have every right to complain about. And yet the overall impression I, and others who aren't rapacious VW fans, have is that there's very little you could do to make the GTI better.

Yet panelist Mike Quincy still thinks the new one sucks because it's not memorable. He thinks it feels just like a normal Golf. Which to me doesn't sound like much of an insult, or accurate since the GTI has a noticeably better engine than the other 2015 Golfs. It's like he wants it to be a Mk 1 GTI so badly that he wants the new car to crash over bumps and be noisy and tiresome to drive. This is someone with Consumer Reports who thinks a car would be better if it were worse.

Don't get me started on him comparing it to an Accord.

Volkswagen Golf Mk 1 (Photo: VW)

No GTI since has ever felt like the first one, and there are very obvious reasons for that. The Mk 2 Golf was much bigger than the first one, which was about 2,100 lbs. and had 90 horsepower. In the rest of the world, VW came out with the Polo that was a similar size to the original Golf, which has always resulted in the Golf getting bigger and plusher. People have complained, and then learned to love every GTI for their own specialness (a Mk 3 VR6 GTI sounds really great right now).

Then there's the GTI's position in the world of hot hatches. Is Quincy under the impression the Mk 6 was the last word in hot hatches, because it wasn't really. Its engine was good, not great. The handling is also very good, but not pin-sharp. But it doesn't beat you up as a daily driver, the interior is a quality place to be in and it looks pretty good overall. That's an overall package a Ford Focus ST or Subaru WRX can't quite bring together. That's why I really like it.

The new one does the same thing, only better. A GTI is always going to be fun enough compared to rivals, but it has its fans because it's a satisfying package as a whole. You trade off the lunatic sounds or looks of a Mini or 500 Abarth for the fact the VW is the perfect size to live with as your only car. That's what this car has been all about, at least for the last 20 years or so. Why have people like Quincy not gotten that message yet?

The new Mk 1 GTI is probably the Ford Fiesta ST and we should stop moaning about VW not making it and embrace the GTI for what it is now. Or rather, those who write about cars for a living should stop moaning.

Confession #50: It's crazy not to bring the Smart ForFour to the US

2014-07-16T15:59:00.003-04:00

Daimler's third go at making the Smart ForTwo super small city car concept work looks good so far. Leave it to the French, Renault in this case, to finally make the Smart as weird as it should be. But it's the four-door, four-seat ForFour that could be a hit. And best of all, it looks ridiculous.

Where it could really work is in the United States. Six years ago, the Smart proved relatively popular as far as tiny European cars go. But five years ago, it entered into a sales spiral it never recovered from – even after Daimler stepped in to distribute the car and introduced a really cheap electric version. Americans want more doors and more space. And that's exactly what Daimler is going to keep from Americans.

Here's what's totally confusing about Daimler's current stance not to sell the upcoming ForFour in the U.S. when this new ForTwo comes here in late 2015: they admit people want a bigger Smart.

2015 Smart ForTwo (Photo: Daimler)

Smart's own brand chief told Automotive News earlier this year, "The most frequent reason people don't pick the ForTwo is because it only has two seats."

There, right there.

Aside from retro cars like the Mini and Fiat 500, we don't get a lot of funky subcompacts in this country. The Honda Fit has gone downright mainstream for 2015. The Nissan Versa isn't funky, it's just bulbous. Even the Ford Fiesta is just being fashionable.

2015 Renault Twingo (Photo: Renault)

In Europe, they're getting a whole slew of eccentric little cars. Chief among them is the Renault Twingo, which is the Smart ForFour's mechanical twin. Who doesn't think a rear-engined French hatchback with a sliding fabric roof and a tiny turbo is the perfect car to drive everywhere in second gear?

I can get over the fact we'll never see the Twingo because Nissan would never want Renault adding to its competition here. But when we can't even have the Twingo with a Smart badge made available through our Mercedes dealers, that's a bummer.

It's not that the ForFour would be too small for this country. At 3.5 meters long, think of it as a Fiat 500 with four doors. It's only a few inches shorter than a Chevy Spark, which sells like hotcakes as far as microcars go in the US.

Smart ForFour interior (Photo: Daimler)

Smart estimates the ForFour with the base 71-horsepower three-cylinder engine will go for 11,600 euros, or a 600 euro premium over the ForTwo with the same propulsion. Let's say a ForFour would command a $1,000 bump over a similarly equipped ForTwo in the US. The current car starts at $13,270, which is already too much for a car with wind-up windows and no radio or A/C. The cheapest ForFour would probably close to $15,000 here.

And after you add the things young urban people (or whatever they're called these days), you know the price will get up to 20 grand. That's a lot of money for a car from a company that doesn't have any sort of reputation of building machines you can't wait to drive every day.

Smart ForFour (Photo: Daimler)

But hey, the idea of a $16,000 four-door city car with a 90-horsepower three-pot turbo and a five-speed manual intrigues me, especially one as distinctive looking as this. I suspect a lot of other people would be curious about it, too. It's like the anatomically correct Beetle successor Volkswagen is afraid to build.

Smart might fear the ForFour would cannibalize sales of the ForTwo here, but considering they shifted only about 600 ForTwos last month in the US, it's a chance they should feel like taking.

Confession #49: New cars are just like old cars

2014-06-30T13:46:00.000-04:00

The Honda CR-V offers just about anything anyone could ask from a car, as long as you're not someone who particularly likes cars. And even if you do, you can respect it. Really, that's a rare thing.

I've had a theory for a while now that the CR-V is the modern day Volvo 240. Last produced 21 years ago, Volvo never replaced the 240 wagon with anything as utilitarian, so that sent people who cared far more about practicality and longevity than badge snobbery. It's a car people only get rid of when the smells inside of it become too difficult to live with.

But a couple weeks ago, The Car Connection proposed that the real successor to the 240 is, in fact, the Subaru Forester. And if you live in former Volvo strongholds like the Northeast, the comparison is pretty easy to see.

2014 Subaru Forester (Photo: Subaru)

As all Volvos were up until the last 15 years or so, the 240 series was a pretty shapeless thing that you could respect because it was so functional. On that basis, the Forester manages to try even less than the CR-V at being stylish. There is absolutely no design for design's sake – it's just a box, and it's proud of it.

And both are driven by people who aim to drive them into the ground. Scratches and dents only enhance their charm, and it's expected the cargo area will be covered in animal hair.

So let's say the Subaru Forester is the Volvo 240 of today. What are the new car equivalents of old cars?

BMW M235i (Photo: BMW)

Easy ones out of the way first: the BMW 2-series is the new BMW 3-series. You could argue the entire BMW lineup has moved up at least one size in the least 20 years or so, but it's generally agreed that the 2 is most aligned with an E30 and E36 3-series from the '90s. And obviously, you don't have to be obsessed with cars to see the Audi A3 is what the B5-era A4 from the late '90s was before it grew up with the rest of the class (it's the same size, after all).

Here's just a general rule: the new "small" luxury cars are really just the current compact luxury cars before they gained all the weight and bulk they have now.

1992-96 Toyota Camry (Photo: Toyota)

But what's the new Toyota Camry? It isn't the current Camry, which has really become something like the new Chevy Lumina or something as ubiquitous and unremarkable, which makes no concessions to styling so as to be as conservative as possible.

The Camry didn't always used to be this way. Even after some Americanizing to make it more appealing than its very Japanese first and second generations, Toyota's midsize sedan oozed refinement in ways no other car in its class did at the time. And it had just enough style to stop it from being totally anonymous, unlike plenty of nameplates that have been forgotten in the last couple of decades.

2015 Hyundai Sonata Sport 2.0T (Photo: Hyundai)

I have a feeling the 2015 Hyundai Sonata has become the new Camry. I knew it in April when I saw it at the New York Auto Show. So it came as no surprise that someone else, like Automobile Magazine, called the new Sonata the new Camry after they drove it.

Even launching it in a color called Urban Sunset (read: orange) does nothing to hide the fact this Sonata is very inoffensive. People say it's blander than the last one, and that's probably true. But plenty of people thought the old one looked cartoonish, with all of its curves and swooshes. This car looks detailed, finished and not accidental. It looks refined.

2015 Toyota Camry XSE (Photo: Toyota)

Compare it to what Toyota's done with the 2015 Camry and you see where the plot has been lost. In making the car bigger and more universally appealing to people who valued buying American sedans for their space and value, Toyota dropped the refinement ball. And instead, they've decided their mainstream car needs more add-on trim pieces as if they're appealing to the stick-on vents crowd.

Toyota doesn't really make a Camry as we knew it anymore. But then Volvo doesn't make a 240 anymore. For fans of those older cars, they can take comfort in a Hyundai and Subaru showroom, respectively. At least for BMW E36 and Audi B5 devotees, they can still show up at the same dealership.

Confession #48: Buick and Cadillac need each other right now

2014-06-23T11:18:00.001-04:00

Buick Regal GS, Cadillac CTS (Photos: GM)

I absolutely feel for Cadillac right now. In my lifetime, there have been at least five big pushes to tell people "This is not your grandfather's Cadillac." And it's really only now the product has pretty much backed up that claim. That's why it sucks sales are spiraling.

It can't help that there's been a jumble of leaders over the past couple years at GM's most prestigious brand. And even after a sales bump in 2013, the momentum has been lost.

You could also blame the Germans. Thanks to Lexus' troubles at the beginning of the decade, the formerly dominant BMW and Mercedes raced to the top of the sales charts among luxury brands in the US. Even though Audi ranks far further down than the three aforementioned brands, dealers can't get enough of popular cars like the A3 and Q5. Audi definitely has the cool factor and momentum.

2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe (Photo: GM)

Cadillac should definitely have a cool factor. In talking about the ATS and CTS, there is no qualifier needed. They're not just good cars for Cadillac, they're good cars – period. It should be a win, but sales for the ATS in its second full year are tanking, and who knows if the 2015 ATS Coupe will significantly reverse that – or if the CTS won't have the same problem next year.

Then you have the blunder that keeps on injuring, the ELR plug-in. Ever since its ridiculous $75,000 price tag was announced, the ELR has suffered with a ridiculous ad and the very public fact no one is buying them. It hasn't been Cadillac's best year.

But, quietly, there's another GM brand that's been having several good years in a row. And they have a lot of the product Cadillac needs to compete head-on with the German rivals.

Buick Encore (Photo: GM)

Through May, Buick is up about 11% in US sales while Cadillac is off by 2%. Buick is no doubt helped by the fact it has two crossovers in its lineup, the tiny Encore and the great-big Enclave, which are its best-selling models this year. Cadillac only has one crossover, the mid-sized SRX that's also its best-seller. There's a reason every other brand in the luxury segment is quickly introducing crossovers of all sizes.

To beat them, Cadillac needs many more crossovers. The SRX is the right size to go against the eternally popular Audi Q5, BMW X3, etc., but it needs something with three rows to fight the also-popular Acura MDX and BMW X5 (although you could argue the Escalade competes fine with the more opulent Mercedes GL, Audi Q7 and Range Rover Sport). But at the low end, there's an ever widening hole where the BMW X1, Mercedes GLA and Audi Q3 go. And yes, the Buick Encore.

The problem is that Cadillac can't just go and add in these vehicles to augment its sedan lineup. GM has reportedly canned its idea to base a Cadillac three-row crossover on the same platform given to the Buick Enclave and GMC Acadia, for fear of robbing those popular vehicles of sales. What's to stop them from using a similar reason to not introduce any smaller, or front-wheel drive, vehicles.

Look at the Buick lineup, and it complements Cadillac's pretty well, eliminating much of the overlap that haunted the old GM. So why make a Cadillac smaller than an ATS if there's going to be a Buick Verano or Regal? Why give Buick something bigger than a LaCrosse if there's a Cadillac CTS and XTS? For everyone wondering why Buick wasn't killed off too in the bankruptcy, here's a reason other than "China."

Confession #47: There aren't enough selfish people anymore to buy two-door cars

2014-06-11T21:00:00.000-04:00

Photo: Honda

Just because a car only has one door on each side doesn't make it sexier than something that has four. But try telling this to people who insist on only having two-doors. Like a surprising amount of people I've known in my life. They tend to be single, or divorced, or childless, or not very practical. Selfish is probably too strong of a word, but it's something along those lines.

Perhaps it's the more pragmatic times we're living in these days that are making people a little more caring – caring enough to buy more and more vehicles with four doors and at least two rows of seats. And that's killing the (relatively) inexpensive two-door car. That includes coupes and convertibles.

Last week, Justin Hyde over at Yahoo! explained why no one wants convertibles anymore, and the segment is going to be an even smaller blip on the US auto sales radar in 2014 than in years past. One thing's for sure, people won't be buying new convertibles for a while. There are very few mainstream brands making them anymore, so if you're looking for a convertible that isn't a cute and tiny VW Beetle or Mini or Fiat 500c, you're forced to look at offerings from luxury brands that usually kick off near $50,000.

A similar problem faces buyers of the basic coupe these days. Among traditional three-box shapes, you're limited to Honda, Hyundai and Kia if you want a small coupe. The next level up gets you a little more choice in the form of the Chevy Camaro, Dodge Challenger, Ford Mustang, Hyundai Genesis and the Subaru BRZ/Scion FR-S twins. Oh, and the Honda Accord Coupe, which is the only one of that set that's remotely practical as you're only car. That still isn't much selection.

Photo: Mini

I would've guessed the small two-door hatch might be safe from this trend, but Mini has recently shown off its four-door hatchback, which promises to be practical like the four-door Countryman with less of the flab. The looks are odd, but the packaging is compelling. This won't be good for the traditional Mini Cooper hatch.

And then look at the way VW has packaged the 2015 Golf and GTI lineup for the US. Want sunroof, navigation or anything like that? They want you to buy a four-door version. Or maybe a Beetle.

Full disclosure: I make payments on a Mk6 VW GTI with two doors (three-door, whatever). It wasn't by choice, I just wanted a Shadow Blue GTI with a sunroof that I could afford. I apologize to anyone who has to get in the back, as they usually tend to be claustrophobic coworkers, six-foot-tall men and my mother.

Photo: Land Rover

Of course, there are the oddballs. The premium brands love to experiment.

I've seen about a dozen examples of the Mini Paceman on the streets (they're getting more frequent, though) and they don't look any better or make any more sense. Seriously, just get the normal hatchback. But then there's the Range Rover Evoque Coupe, and someone from Jaguar/Land Rover I was seated next to at dinner a few months ago was surprised I would go for that one over the four-door Evoque.

The Evoque is far from the most practical compact posh crossover out there, so if you already place looks over rear-seat access, why not just go all out and get the least practical version? Best of all, this is a two-door car that has all-wheel drive and ground clearance and a higher driving position. That's what everyone who lives in a place with seasons apparently wants.

Photo: Nissan

Here's the part where you say the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet did nothing to persuade people they wanted a two-door convertible based on a four-door all-wheel drive crossover. Here's where I remind you it was almost $50,000 and said Nissan on the front and back. It's a badge issue, what can I say?

New convertible sales will get a boost with stuff like the Audi A3 and BMW 2-series soft-tops, and of course the 2015 Ford Mustang. The segment is rather stagnant right now, especially for one so dependent on flash. I don't know what to do about coupes, though. Companies like Volvo prove they can design beautiful two-door stuff like the Volvo Concept Estate, but they probably want to add doors to it for production.

Photo: Volvo

New-car buyers are less and less willing to pay a premium for cars with a mainstream badge. As Bloomberg noted two years ago, a convertible adding a $5-6,000 hit to the price of a car is way less desirable than big ticket option packages that add the same price – and that includes a big panoramic sunroof that lets very nearly the same amount of light and wind in. It's fewer sacrifices in practicality. You get your full two rows of seats, you don't need a windblocker to stop it from being too drafty inside, you can fit all of your luggage in the trunk – roof open or closed.

Evidently we're just used to being more comfortable all the time than we used to. At least some of us.

Early on in his article, Hyde dismissed the Jeep Wrangler from the convertible contest as a truck. But really, that's exactly the convertible most people want. It comes in two and four-door formats, giving selfish people an outlet. It's four-wheel drive, which is what an increasing amount of people think is essential in their year-round commutes. Never mind the older people who keep buying new cars, this is key to the Wrangler's appeal for image-conscious new-car buyers.

Of course the Wrangler is an off-road vehicle first and foremost. And when you take the roof off, everyone can see the skin on your passengers' faces wiggling when you hit that deep pothole. But not yours, because you've looked out for yourself and prepared accordingly. With facial exercises, probably.

Confession #46: I can't imagine marketers picking baby names

2012-07-16T15:19:00.000-04:00

Opel ADAM. And some jumping people
(General Motors photo)

I won two goldfish from the Monroe School carnival when I was 8. They lived for about a week, but I still named them Bob and Buster – and no, I couldn't tell them apart. I arrived at Bob and Buster because Bob Crown appeared regularly on local TV commercials promoting his dealer, Crown Dodge. Next to him, usually sitting on a Durango or something like that, was his bulldog, Buster. Seriously, those were the best names I could come up with.

Names for living, breathing things are hard. My parents chose my full, legal name by committee. That's why, when I show off my driver's license, people sometimes die of laughter. But why should naming a car be that difficult? It is, because Opel just picked one of the first names in the baby book.

Adam Opel, the man

When Ford introduced the Edsel line, the first thing many people asked was, "What the hell is 'Edsel'?" That's not a good way to introduce a new car, and Edsel promptly flopped, never mind it was a hideous, badly made car. Opel has done something similar by calling the fashionable Fiat 500/Audi A1/Mini-ripoff the ADAM (and that's the last time I'm going to capitalize that – come on, marketers!). Adam refers to Adam Opel, as in the company's founder. Ferrari honored its founder similarly with the Enzo, and that's fine. But what's a cooler name, Adam or Enzo?

And here's this: Enzo Ferrari got in the car business because he loved racing. Adam Opel started making cars because sewing machines weren't profitable enough. Not that you can in the US, but if you told someone you spent about $20,000 on a new Opel Adam Glam (that's really one of the trim levels available, along with Slam and Jam, but, fortunately, no "Wham bam, thank you, ma'am") they're going to think you invested in an '70s rock band with a singer covered in glitter.

Opel got it wrong, but plenty of other carmakers have shot themselves in the foot of late. Lincoln decided to drop Zephyr and Aviator for MKZ and MKX because names like Continental and Town Car were overshadowing the brand name. Instead they went for names no one could remember and people forgot about Lincoln.

The Germans could get away with alphanumerics for years because they usually meant something. A BMW 328i used to mean the 3-series, which was smaller than a 5 or a 7, with a 2.8-liter fuel-injected gas engine. But now a 328i means a 3-series with a 2-liter turbocharged gas engine. Mercedes is guilty of the same thing.

Ignoring the LR2 and LR4 that are the Freelander and Discovery elsewhere in the world, Land Rover has been good about using words, not numbers. The company decided to bank off of the successful Range Rover and create a marketing muck-up of their own. The Range Rover Sport was smaller than a Range Rover, but where does the Range Rover Evoque fit in? And on what DMV form does Land Rover Range Rover Evoque Coupe Dynamic actually fit?

At least Opel Adam is short, but it's memorable for the wrong reason. Is that what marketers actually think will make us recognize a car when we hear it being name dropped?

Confession #45: I drive an old car, and that's perfectly fine

2012-07-12T12:00:00.001-04:00

(Zac Estrada photo – Click for more photos of cars in Cuba)

The average age of the cars on the road today is 11 years old. In theory, the average car in this country could enter the sixth grade. The notion that Americans buy and sell a car every three years is completely gone. It could be the economy and continuously tight credit situations forcing people to keep their cars longer. Or it could be that cars from that era are just too good to give up.

Think about the time period these cars fall into. The late '90/early '00s time period produced some seriously good machines, a few of which haven't really been bettered by their successors. I'm starting to understand all of those people who've only owned Golf Mk2s or E39 BMWs because they say they were never beaten. Or my grandfather, great automotive philosopher he was, who searched for a car he liked better than a VW Beetle and never found one. Let's ignore that, OK?

My car is 14 years old. It looks like hell, partly the fault of my own neglect. It's developed a new problem of late that makes me think twice about making left turns in the risk of losing all of my power steering fluid. But there are no xenon lights to go out and cost me $500 a side. It's not going to cost $400 to replace the parking sensors if someone backs into me. And while it will cost me $189 to get a new key, that's far better than the lofty price tag of one of those electronic keys fitted to many cars by the middle of the 2000s. It's so simple, relative to new cars, that I'd consider working on it myself. If I had a practical bone in my body, that is.

My car, shortly after its biannual bath

I've driven newer 9-3s, BMW E46s and E90s, newer C-Classes and a Lexus IS250. They're nice cars, all of them. But there are a few things they can't do better than my aged 900. There are no hatches for me to easily throw a bike in. All of them, especially the IS, are tough to see out of. And they all feel kind of disconnected from the road, including the BMWs. My car communicates information through torque steer, but at least it's laugh-inducing.

Sure, there are faults with some of the tech in 11-year-old cars. If you've turned on the navigation system in a similarly aged Range Rover, you'll be reminded that we used to accept graphics that look like Etch-A-Sketch drawings. Keyless Go was fun when it first came out on Mercedes cars this time last decade – when it worked, that is.

In Europe, the increasing car age has certain groups worried about things like safety and emissions. In the UK, the average age of a car is more than 7 years old, no doubt significantly lower than it would be had it not been for the scrappage schemes of a few years ago. And the scrappage, or Cash for Clunkers in the States, basically resulted in fewer cheap used cars and more people buying new Hyundais and Kias. How is that helping the environment? It isn't. And as much as the auto industry wants you to buy a new car, ask yourself if this new car is actually any better than your 11-year-old one.

Confession #44: If the faithful won't buy a Saab EV, who will?

2012-06-13T11:46:00.002-04:00

2010 Saab 9-3X (Saab Automobile photo)

I've expressed my love and skepticism for Saab several times. But I never wrote an obit.

I very nearly counted them out as the production halt in April 2011 turned into a potential sale, which turned into reorganization and then full-on bankruptcy around Christmas. They were down, but not dead and buried. Yet.

Today's news the broken remains of Saab Automobile – the plant, various tooling pieces and probably a lot of stationary and swanky Swedish furniture – were sold to a consortium called National Electric Vehicle Sweden (NEVS). NEVS is based in Sweden, led by a Chinese-born executive and has Japanese and Chinese money. Sounds like an interesting party, to say the least.

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that NEVS' goal is to electrify Saab to make it viable – by being essentially a Swedish Tesla Motors and banking on the EV wave that is coming over the world's biggest markets – like China, the US and parts of Europe. An electric Saab, theoretically, sounds like a good bet, too. Historically, Saab customers have been creative and environmentally conscious forward-thinkers.

Save Saab, Paris, Jan. 2010 (Saabactu photo)

That's why I've been stunned at the reaction from Saab fans at the blog, SaabsUnited.com. These are the vocal fans largely credited for getting GM to sell the company to Spyker back in 2010, and kept faith long after most people consigned the weird cars to the history books. You'd think they'd want to see Saab live above all else.

It turns out many of them would rather see Saab dead (or sold back to GM, for that matter) than it be turned into an EV company. Comment after comment from today's press conference of the sale had users shuddering at the thought of an all-electric 9-3 that NEVS wants to put on-sale by the end of next year, and a new 9-3 in the future that will be an EV. It's not that these Saabists don't want a new Saab, they simply don't want a Saab without an internal combustion engine.

Which is shortsighted, in my opinion. First off, the basis for Saab EVs for the foreseeable future will be models developed by the company under GM and Spyker. The first 9-3 EV will probably be similar, other than the engine, to the last cars that rolled off of the Trollhattan line before the money ran out. That's a car the SaabsUnited faithful are quick to defend as competitive, even though the bones are from circa 2002. And the new EV will benefit from the R&D Saab did post-GM.

As much as I like a turbo and think EVs aren't quite ready for primetime, an EV-only Saab Automobile sounds like an interesting prospect – if the money doesn't run out like it always does in Saab's history. EVs aren't mainstream yet, but Saab will never (and should never) be mainstream. Tesla and Fisker have proven EVs and range-extenders can be desirable cars. In fact, the biggest questions I have for NEVS are these: Will the first 9-3 EV be priced competitively given its age? And why the dominant focus on China, where Saab is a non-entity, instead of the US and UK, where EV Saabs have a shot at selling?

Those two points seem like the biggest hitches in plan for a new Saab. But again, it is a new Saab. The company's property has been tossed around like a bag of Swedish Fish over the last few months and many key engineers have found work elsewhere. So, again, I'm curious to see what becomes of the Saab EVs. But I have my car-buying sights set on an XC70, from that other Chinese-Swedish carmaker.

Confession #43: Acura and Buick's new small cars are Millennial-chasers, but Baby Boomers will be doing the driving

2012-04-22T11:41:00.000-04:00

2013 Acura ILX (Photo: Wikimedia/IFCAR)

A day doesn't go by when I don't come across some story about automakers dying to appeal to so-called Millennials, or the twentysomething crowd infatuated with Facebook and iPhones.

That's fine and whatever, but designers and product planners think it's a good idea to incorporate elements of these things into new cars, especially those they want to sell to people of my demographic (well, those of us who are gainfully employed). I like the ability to connect my iPhone through Bluetooth and Internet radio steaming through the speakers is cool. But I do not want to update my Facebook status while driving, or post something witty to Twitter. Product planners of the auto industry, listen up: that's not going to get more Millennials to buy your cars.

What might work is if these entry-level "premium" cars they're pitching didn't look like they're made for our parents. The latest case comes from Acura, in the form of the totally shrug-inducing ILX sedan.

Acuras were invented for Honda-loving yuppies in the '80s and were never much more than dolled-up Hondas. This worked when Hondas were really good and the company made stuff like the Legend and the original NSX. It was what made the original Integra so good. That was a Civic with a bigger engine, different styling and generally sportier.

Acura Integra three-door (Photo: Flickr/Grant.C)

The mid-to-late '90s version is one of my all-time favorite cars. While the fast GS-R and Type-R hatches are favorites among people who thought the "Fast and the Furious" movies were documentaries, remember who it was who bought the cheaper, low-power four-door versions: old people.

People who didn't want something quite as pedestrian as a Civic but wanted a posh-ish badge went for an Integra, and rightfully so. It was a nicer Civic that was just as economical but had nicer dealers.

Acura wants back in the economy end of the premium sector with the ILX. Their first thought must have been the old Integra, hence the name. But the L in the middle of that stupid set of letters must stand for luxury, and that's a worry. The ILX goes the "shrunken luxury" route to a small premium car, rather than "sport sedan with niceties." Sure, there's a 201-horsepower six-speed manual version. But even that one doesn't look exciting. Honestly, the ILX is no new Integra. Worse for Acura, it's nothing to get too excited over either.

Buick Verano (Photo: Flickr/Michelin Media)

The little Acura reminds me of a little Buick that recently went on sale, the Verano. Verano may mean summer in Spanish, but it's not an exciting name. To me, the car look like it should be called Skylark. Probably because it reminds me of something an aunt of mine used to drive, with its big, chrome grille and various brown shades.

Inside, it's nicely swathed in leather and bright trim and it actually feels really nice. Like the ILX, it also comes with push-button start, a smart sat nav, Bluetooth and ways to stream Pandora in the car. It would be desired by Millennials if it just didn't look so grown up. In fact, it'd be a perfect car for my mother.

The Acura and Buick would be perfect cars for parents of Millennials. Every mother and father who drove to pick up their kids (and their neighbors' kids) from my elementary school in their late-'90s Explorer or early-'90s Mercedes wagon now drives something much smaller. If Hillary Clinton weren't busy being secretary of state right now (and didn't have Secret Service driving her and Bill around), either car would work for her. There are lots of Baby Boomers in this country trying to downsize from their minivans and big SUVs into things with fewer seats, since they're not doing carpool duty anymore.

Buick Regal Turbo (Flickr/2011BuickRegal)

And Millennials? Those of us who care about driving are certainly not driving something our parents would drive. I think the Verano is a nice car, and the upcoming Verano Turbo intrigues me. But would I buy one, with money? No. Buicks and Acuras are still grown-up brands and the outward appearance of the Verano and ILX reflect that. A Volkswagen Jetta or GLI is cheaper, an Audi A3 is more premium and has a hatch, which appeals more to the city dwellers that Millenials are.

Buick's best chance is to go after people downsizing from their big Lexuses or Cadillacs with the Verano, for fuel economy or different reasons. The Regal, which doesn't cost a whole lot more, looks sportier and more fun. Acura missed an opportunity to attract young people again with an athletic-looking, sporty small hatch and sedan. Instead, the ILX looks and, based on other journalist accounts, drives like a luxury Civic. For the life of me, I can't think of anyone who gets up in the morning and says, "Yes, that's exactly what I want."

Automakers just don't understand us.

Confession #42: If others' first impressions are anything to go on, some things are still worth the wait

2012-03-29T00:14:00.001-04:00

2013 Subaru BRZ (AutoViva photo)

I swear, I'm not turning into some hyper-critic of automotive journalists. I may have just railed on Consumer Reports and their apparent lack of any understanding of impulse buying in their reviews, but I will largely save media criticism for my other blog.

This isn't so much criticism as an observation. Perhaps the most drawn-out coverage among auto journalists in recent memory is the Toyota-Subaru sports coupe collaboration, just now bearing fruit as the Subaru BRZ, Scion FR-S and its Toyota-branded equivalent. A lot of acronyms, but really one rear-wheel drive, compact sports coupe with a boxer four-pot and aimed at sports car purists who value great handling characteristics over modern electronic driver intervention and a heavily boosted engine. What's more, this speaks to the core of an auto journalist's heart. These are cars that just aren't as common on auto show stands, things with four cylinders, three pedals and a price that begins with a 2. I'm starting to picture hoards of drivers slobbering like Labradors at the press launch.

And I'm probably right, based on the First Drive reviews that flowed down Twitter late last week. It's been seemingly universal praise for the Subaru coupe, the first since the wild XT and SVX coupes of the '80s and '90s – cars that were cool when I was six and still are today. But the BRZ has everyone, from the hoons over at Motor Trend to the guy who writes car reviews for Vanity Fair (and probably maintains Subarus are driven almost exclusively by lesbians).

One must remember Subaru, as a car manufacturer, has split personalities. Ask a group of people in a Whole Foods parking lot what comes to mind when they think of the company, and they'll probably say words like "Outback," "Vermont," and "Birkenstocks." But approach someone getting out of a car with a big wing on the back and a tailpipe a toddler could get lost in, and they'll say words like "turbo," "rally" and "hella." Probably. The BRZ represents the personality of Subaru that doesn't include people lugging muddy dogs around.

Toyota Supra GA70 Twin Turbo (Flickr/FotoSleuth)

For Subaru, and Toyota for that matter, these coupes are a reminder that there's still life in these companies beyond seeking out the mainstream. For every time an engineer has to produce an over-inflated Outback and bland Impreza or Corolla, there's pent-up anger building and yearning for the days when Subaru made the awesome-because-it's-bizarre XTs or Toyota had stuff like the Supra or Celica All-Trac. Those were great cars that, while imperfect in the Subaru's case and a little derivative in the Toyota's, were technically impressive and generally cool machines.

The new Toybarus remind me of what the Miata did for Mazda in 1989. That car was so good that one car reviewer, who drove it at the press launch back then, swears to this day a street corner full of people applauded when he drove by. We all know now it was a rip-off of a Lotus Elan, but that was no bad starting point. It's such a slick, impressive machine that gets by without a shedload of power because its chassis is so well-engineered. It's a driver's car, and doesn't care if it shares a showroom with a dull Mazda 2 or Lorax-supported CX-5.

A driver doesn't care a BRZ or FR-S or FT-86 shares knobs with your sister's Toyota Matrix, or the switches from a WRX STI. A true gearhead only cares that these companies made this car because it's a damn good product – it's a sports car that puts driving finesse over fiddly comfort and convenience features. You get behind the wheel and you know exactly what to do in order to have the most possible fun.

And for all the auto journalists out there, isn't it nice that someone takes what you write to heart and just does a good job?

Confession #41: Don't hate it just because it's pretty, unreliable

2012-03-23T10:08:00.001-04:00

You don't have to read too deep to find Consumer Reports' biases when it comes to testing cars. They place heavy emphasis over value and practicality over things like styling and emotion, things they probably say, "We leave to the enthusiast rags." Rightly so, since Consumer Reports also reviews things like TVs, laptops, butter and similarly prosaic products.

Don't get me wrong, I read their Cars blog religiously. And if someone who buys cars like they do microwaves, I base my recommendations off of some CR reviews. But if I, or anyone who puts emotion and style on a level with practicality, were in the market, I'd take CR's data with a grain of salt.

The chronicles of their troublesome Fisker Karma then leaves me a little puzzled. First of all, who of their Prius-loving clientele is really interested in the Karma's gorgeous exterior and six-figure price tag? And it's such a low-volume vehicle, who, other than enthusiasts and celebrities, are really considering such a car? Those people are probably uninterested in reliability anyway, and they're tired of looking environmentally conscious while driving around in a Prius.

Consumer Reports doesn't do emotion. They measure how well a car performs on paper, so how it goes and stops and slides is all important. But how connected the driver feels to the car doesn't seem to elicit many marks, nor does the way it looks. That's probably why they usually rate the Toyota Camry as the best midsize sedan you can buy, a car with no steering feel, squishy seats and a general lack of style or any indication it was designed with the intention actual humans would operate the thing. The new one may be much improved in those regards, but the old one was a classic airport rental special. Even the ill-fitting interior panels and mouse-fur upholstery didn't register on CR's radar as much as its fuel economy and quietness.

Jaguar XJ (Jaguar Cars photo)

So when the Fisker broke down, that was bad. But the misses kept coming when testers tried to see out of its narrow windows. They didn't like the weird upholstered dash, or the noise from the turbo engine. And they really hated the slow touchscreen. And they think for $100,000-plus, there should be more interior space. Maybe that's why they like the Mercedes-Benz S-class or Lexus LS over the very stylish Jaguar XJ. No, you can't see out of the Jag, it's less reliable and has a slow touchscreen. But it's built more beautifully than either, is lighter and more agile and doesn't look like a German airport taxi. Or a Toyota Camry. And if you're spending a lot of money on a car, shouldn't it look special?

Land Rover Range Rover Evoque (Land Rover photo)

Earlier this year, CR railed on the beautiful Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, a vehicle praised by Top Gear, Wall Street Journal, Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Automobile Magazine and Autocar, to name a few (pretty much anyone you can name who also praised the Karma). Guess what? They didn't like the fact you can't see out of it, the touch screen is slow, you don't have acres of space for your fat American ass and that, for $45,000, you get a turbo four-cylinder. So does a BMW 5-series, but I haven't heard any moaning from them.

Admittedly, criticisms like mine are certainly not new. And CR does show some credibility when they rank the mediocre new Civic and Jetta at the bottom of their rankings. But they also give the Jeep Wrangler an appallingly low rating because of its on-road manners. And they said they weren't going to buy an Audi A7 to test because it was a niche car. Well ... isn't the Fisker? And the Lotus Elise they tested years ago? And, for that matter, the Jaguar XJ?

Sure, there are problems like bad build quality and a generally high price that let the value proposition of cars like these down. No doubt, something German is a more logical choice. But logic would dictate that no one needs to spend this kind of money on a car, especially when they say models with more generic labels (like Hyundai, Nissan, Kia, etc.) do roughly the same for less money.

I'll let you dig around for more negative reviews. The point is, if I were a rental fleet manager trying to buy dependable cars, I'd gladly trust CR's reliability and rankings data. If I were buying the car of my dreams, I wouldn't take them too seriously.

People who buy expensive cars do it because they like the car. It's an irrational purchase, so what if it's irrational to like it if there isn't plentiful headroom, a big trunk or if it breaks down from time to time. Cool cars, even immobile, are still cool.

Confession #40: Americans dislike some really nice cars

2012-03-06T18:29:00.001-05:00

Jaguar XF Sportbrake (Jaguar Cars photo)

The annual Geneva Motor Show is typically a parade of new, sometimes good-looking, cars that won't be available to Americans. It's exciting and disheartening for the fanatics who long for the ability to buy a weird French car in the States, or want something exotic that doesn't cost as much as a Ferrari. But lately, it's carmakers like Jaguar and Volvo who are witholding not only engines, but full-on body styles and new models from the US.

Companies say over and over Americans don't like wagons. I'm not one of them, along with a lot of other automotive commentators – we'd gladly take one over a lumbering crossover that's no more practical and a noticeably less efficient. But people with actual checkbooks have shown exactly what they'll pay for. Volvo, the byword for wagon, doesn't sell any of its V50, V60 or V70 wagons here anymore. The XC70, its only wagon-like model, finds maybe 4,000 new homes every year, compared to around 20,000 a decade ago.

Most people probably don't remember Jaguar, a name more synonymous with luxury sedans than load-luggers, sold a wagon version of its little X-Type sedan in the US from 2005 to 2007. The X-Type itself was a low note in the British brand's history, but the wagon derivative was particularly unloved – I think I've seen three out in the wild in my life, and about as many on eBay. So I can understand the company's apprehension to bring the stunning XF Sportbrake across the Atlantic.

Too bad, since it's good to look at. I like the name too, because it effectively says, "We're going to make it practical, but it's going to be pretty too." A shooting brake is effectively a wagon that's prioritized looks over space, but in the XF that's no problem. It looks as commodious as a BMW 5-series Touring or Audi A6 Avant – neither of which we get over here. As much as I like the XC70 or Mercedes E-class wagon, I think the better-looking XF would find some homes here.

Volvo V40 (Volvo Cars photo)

I think Volvo's new hatchback, the V40, would find even more homes – even though some stereotypically say Americans avoid hatches like regular exercise. Volvo used to be a middle-class car for academic types who valued integrity over speed and good looks. Then Volvos started getting fast (850 T5) and good-looking (C70). And too expensive (all of the above). The S60, which is a gorgeous piece of Swedish machinery, starts at about $32,000. Volvo has the also-handsome C30 hatch, which kicks off at $25,000, but it's a small seller globally. Add a couple of doors and you have the V40, a car I'd gladly recommend to people who find a Volkswagen Golf too pedestrian but an Audi A3 too expensive (don't get me started on the lumpen Lexus CT and blindingly bland Acura ILX). The more I look at the V40, the more I like it. That's a good sign. And with a sprightly T5 engine and all-wheel drive, it'd be a hoot to drive and a hit in Volvo-loving Northeast. It'd also be a perfect replacement for a certain set of the public bemoaning the demise of the Saab Turbo.

I know Alfa Romeo is (supposedly) coming by 2014. Yes, we have the Fiat 500 now, but I'd gladly trade the Mini Countryman-lookalike 500L (also unveiled in Geneva) for a Sportbrake or V40. It's getting to the point now where all of the interesting, niche cars are blocked from the US. Look, Jaguar: Acura took a chance on the TSX wagon and that's selling about 10 percent of what the sedan's doing – in line with the company's projections. Volvo, your old parent Ford is selling $25,000 Focus Titanium hatchbacks (soon with manual transmissions, no less). Why not target people looking at those who want something with a badge posher than a Blue Oval. And, most importantly: What's an out-of-the-box, Camry-hating person supposed to do? Take a subway?

Confession #39: Grandpa would want more cylinders

2012-02-28T14:57:00.000-05:00

Cadillac V8 (Flickr/Hugo 90)

About five years ago, I was standing next to my grandfather watching a commercial for the then-new Cadillac CTS and the announcer was touting its direct injected V6 with 300-something horsepower. My grandfather, long past his driving years but still filled with memories of his '76 Coupe de Ville, turned to me and asked, "Does having a V6 cheapen a Cadillac?"

Grandpa raised a good point. I, raised on turbo fours and preferring condensed European power to the brute force that's long been an American philosophy, thought it was a non-issue at the time. To him, a Cadillac wasn't a Cadillac without eight cylinders. (I wasn't born yet to ask him what he thought of the Cimarron). He never really forgave GM for their downsizing in the '70s and '80s, either. If Grandpa were around today, I wonder what he'd say about the new Cadillac ATS, the 3-series opponent that features two four-cylinders in its engine roster. He'd probably hate it. And, after much thought, I kind of have to agree with him.

2013 Cadillac ATS (Flickr/Autoviva)

It's the worst-kept secret that GM wants Cadillac to go head-to-head with Mercedes-Benz in the luxury field, specifically in Europe and China, where consumers have said time and again they don't want a Cadillac. (I'm going to hold my tongue and not talk about how GM had, then lost, premium European customers with a certain Swedish ex-subsidiary.) To counter that, GM is effectively reworking its flagship division in the mold of the Germans. The new ATS, unveiled last month in Detroit, is roughly the same size as a C-class or 3-series, with roughly the same engine lineup. In essence, it's closer to the compact sport sedan bullseye than Cadillac has ever been – far closer than with the pudgy Catera.

Most of it sounds good on paper. Yes, the base engine is the 2.5-liter four out of the new Malibu, but you can upgrade to either a new turbo four or the fine direct injection 3.6 V6 out of the CTS. It's rear wheel drive, it's short and, in general, looks pretty good. But think about it: What does a Cadillac mean to you? To me, it's a big, blingy thing with lots of chrome and big wheels. It's a pretty showy car to be seen in. Granted, so is a Mercedes, but a Cadillac is more over-the-top. A Cadillac is American, it's supposed to follow the "bigger is better" mantra. A Cadillac with a turbo four doesn't sit well in my head.

2011 BMW 5-series (Wikimedia Commons)

Neither does a 5-series with a turbo four, for that matter. BMW's been on a turbocharging kick of late, and it's merited some good results with the universally praised six-cylinder turbo. The blown six is so good it makes me wonder why anyone would get a V8 5, 6 or 7-series over the six. A straight-six is a BMW hallmark. It's like a V8 Cadillac in a number of ways. That's why I think the turbo four, found in the new 528i among other BMWs, is wrong for that car. Admittedly, I haven't driven it yet. But I bet it's great and I do love a turbocharged four-pot. It just seems wrong in the big Bimmer. If I had less than $50,000 to spend on a BMW sedan, I'd take a 335i over a 528i, hands down.

2012 Buick Regal GS (Wikimedia Commons)

The Germans have to downsize or die thanks to CAFE standards. Americans won't buy their diesels or hatchbacks in big numbers and as companies, they're relatively small. But their European customers overwhelmingly buy four-cylinders, too, even if they are diesels. For BMW, putting a small engine in a 528i is less of a stretch than Cadillac marketing a $30,000-plus car with a turbo four. Leaving aside their doomed European aspirations, where does the four-cylinder ATS fit within GM's portfolio? The company flogs lots of little Sonics and Cruzes to offset their big trucks and SUVs, and already has Buick selling the little Verano and Regal appealing to the lower end of the luxury class. I know enthusiasts would like to think a front-wheel drive Regal Turbo and rear-wheel drive ATS Turbo are on two different playing fields, but if they're about the same size and in the $30-40,000 ballpark, I'm going to say buyers are going to look at them similarly.

2012 Chrysler 300 S (Flickr/sarahlarson)

In GM's quest to make Cadillac the "standard of the world" again, they've made it rather German. And technically, that's fine. But as a brand, it could be kind of damaging. I, for one, wouldn't be caught dead in a Cadillac. They're still too showy and for the same money (or even less) I could have an Audi. They've said they've made the ATS as good as a 3-series. How's that going to convince anyone to get out of a BMW? If Grandpa were around (and driving) today, he wouldn't have a Cadillac. A CTS-V coupe would probably be a bit much. He wouldn't have a Lincoln, either. So it'd have to be the Junior Bentley, the Chrysler 300. It's big, brash, offers a V8, but is beautifully finished. Grandfather would approve. I just won't tell him it's an old Merc underneath. And the company's owned by Fiat. OK, everything can't be perfect.

Confession #38: How I learned to stop worrying and use Pinterest to share pictures of cars

2012-02-09T12:16:00.000-05:00

Photo: Creative Commons/Flickr/extranoise

I try to stifle a chuckle every time I hear someone call themselves a social media expert. How can you be an expert at something that wasn't even around a decade ago? Does anyone really know how to teach social media? It's like a trial-and-error process. The "social media expert" title is even less applicable to me. Sure, I spend quite a bit of time on Facebook and Twitter, but I was not an early adopter of either of those platforms. I only started using Google+ in earnest a few weeks ago. And Pinterest? That just happened this week.

What's Pinterest? Well ... I don't really know. It involves pictures, that's for sure. And I'm not a picture person. I love words. I'm less hot on images. But ever since I was persuaded into believing Pinterest was a good thing for journalists, I've been struggling to find a way to fit it into my life/work. The object is to make a series of boards based on a certain topic and then "pin" images of certain things you like to those boards, sort of a digital cork board. It's something I never needed in my life, I barely hang pictures or posters on my walls. Then I had an idea.

Cars and Motorcycles section on Pinterest, Feb. 8.

I'm a big fan of cars, if you haven't noticed. I'm also a fan of pretty cars. They can be works of art. Some are so hopeless at being reliable modes of transportation that the only purpose they really serve is to be museum showpieces. And the dead reliable ones are usually ugly as sin or have as much appeal as a kitchen appliance. Because who's ever said, "My God, that's a gorgeous dishwasher." Although I admit, there are some good-looking stainless steel Bosch ones. But never mind.

Cars are great for pictures. There's 15-or-so feet of design and detail that's worth documenting. Whether it's the thin, highly chromed bumpers on a Porsche 356 or the machined metals and surface detailing of a modern Audi, Jaguar or even Fiat 500. A picture says 1,000 words, and if you can't be groping the metal for yourself, a detailed photograph is the best substitute you have to form an opinion and develop an emotion to something a designer hopefully spent months or years crafting.

Edmunds.com, the only automotive site I've found on Pinterest so far, does more than promote their own articles and photo galleries. They share pictures of just great looking machines and amazing roads you'd like to tackle. For a car nut, it's about as alluring as a shopping trip through eBay Motors. And just as much of a time waster.

So yes, I'm still trying to figure out how to fit Pinterest into my life for things other than car lurking and promoting my own stories. I also have to filter through all of the wedding cakes and dresses, since every woman seems to be planning their wedding with it. In the meantime, I can live with it by admiring the backside of an Alfa Romeo. So complicated, this life in the digital age.

Confession #37: The bicker and banter begins just after halftime

2012-02-07T11:02:00.002-05:00

If there's one thing the new Chrysler (after an Obama Administration-orchestrated rescue package and Fiat's savior Sergio Marchionne took the wheel) has been able to do, it's start a conversation after a lavish and polished Super Bowl commercial. If there's one bright spot in this absolutely heartbreaking Super Bowl (look to your right to see where I live), it's that some of the car ads this year were genuinely good. That doesn't always happen.

But while Chrysler seemed to steer the talk towards their cars last year after Eminem pulled up in front of the Fox Theater in a Chrysler 200, the discussion is all about Clint Eastwood this year. More specifically, what the veteran actor and director meant when he said in the "Halftime in America" two-minute spot before the Giants squashed the Patriots' lead.

Here's the short of it: It's mostly Republicans worked up over Eastwood's alleged Obama endorsement in the ad, and I can see why. He's hired by Chrysler to read a script that basically said the rescue deal and tie-up with Italian conglomerate Fiat. It just happens what Eastwood, who played a retired Ford worker in "Gran Torino," says about Chrysler is somewhat of a mirror to what the president's re-election campaign is saying about the economy. There's no need for everyone to get their feathers so ruffled.

Sergio Marchionne
Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Dgtmedia

The Chrysler Miracle, in fact, could be symbolic of the U.S. economy if the latest job rates prove consistent this year. Not to paint too rosy of a picture, but things aren't as bad as they were three years ago. In January 2009, both Chrysler and General Motors were circling the drain and companies were shrinking staffs quickly. Chrysler's problem was a little more simple than GM's: In its divorce from Daimler in 2007, it was left without much cash and a truly awful product range. Fiat took the wheel from the number crunchers at Cerberus and put some serious marketing muscle and design know-how into the company. It's worked. Sales are up across the board, 44 percent in January in fact, and the Chrysler Group is so profitable it's basically propping up Fiat as the European economy continues to slump.

Let's take out the rhetoric and put aside the fact Eastwood himself didn't think either GM or Chrysler should have been prevented from liquidating. Chysler's turnaround is truly impressive. They are no longer owned by U.S. or Canadian governments and the loans are all paid back, six years early. New products like the Dodge Dart and Jeep Grand Cherokee are seriously impressive. And don't forget how just breathtaking this two-minute ad really is. Just like the Eminem one last year, I was left speechless after watching this. Twitter was a buzz afterwards over how spectacular it was, political overtones aside. If it signifies an American economic revival, great. I'd settle just for a complete Chrysler turnaround.

We're getting to the point now where we overreact to Super Bowl commercials. Can we just go back to talking about Tom Brady and Wes Welker now? Oh, and Eli Manning, if we have to.