BIT PLAYER OR MAINSTREAM WANNABE? DISCUSS

Subaru is just one of a number of companies which treads a fine line between existing as a lovable sidebar or a successful mass-production carmaker. To make money, one must sell cars.

But what if the people who bought your cars previously purchased the vehicles for the simple reason of individualism? Subaru is a growing automaker, and its success in my neck of the woods is easy to see. They have infiltrated a market where people want practical vehicles - especially the kind that look tougher than they really are.

Saab attempts to walk this line as well, and does so less successfully. Jaguar hasn't been much of a moneymaker in years. It is interesting, however, that we hear all about it now that they try and sell more vehicles by way of more product lines.
Bentley is in another stratosphere, but consider this: three extra models-within-a-model, all priced significantly lower than their previous mainstays. Financial success followed for Bentley.

Even Jeep is part of this debate. Sure, Jeep has held up a lofty image over the years. It is a company whose image is enhanced when we see 25-year old editions covered in mud. Nevertheless, Jeep wants to sell more vehicles and more of those vehicles are supposed to sell to young women. What have we? The Compass and Patriot. Neither have completely impressed the media and neither really shout JEEP.

So, back to the Subaru question. The recent debut of the 2008 Impreza makes you wonder how strong of a Subaru it really is. Factor in the common assumption that it will be a more appealing car to the masses. It doesn't look as quirky, so perhaps the Scooby faithful won't pine for it as they may have in 2002. It doesn't look as quirky, so perhaps the Corolla-buyer (are there Corolla faithful?) will pine for it, as they did not in 2002. It will likely be a better drive, with improved handling and spunkier power delivery. But it's not odd. My thinking is that Subaru has already come firmly in touch with the mainstream, having already developed their faithful following.

This car is not apt to force the inveterate away, because that buyer has long since become addicted to Subaru qualities. Qualities which, hopefully, will not disappear with the frog-eyed headlights.

Which I kinda liked.

WORLD CAR OF THE YEAR

The Good Car Guy is not a voting member. 22 countries are represented by 44 automotive journalists who will cast their votes for the overall car of the year, the performance coty, and the green coty.

I don't vote.

But if I did... I wouldn't even agree with the nominations. Howbeit, the Lexus LS460; Audi TT, and Mini Cooper are all very worthy automobiles.

As are the Audi RS4, BMW 335i, and Porsche 911 Turbo - the very lovely nominees for Pcoty. The Benz E320 Bluetec, Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion, and BMW Hydrogen 7 compete for Gcoty.

If it must be this way, with the Mini, Audi, and Lexus competing against each other...well, I gotta say the Lexus is a mighty expensive car to have a whole lot of impact in the automotive universe. The Mini and the TT are successful reincarnations of the original. However, the Mini has not really moved its game on, and the TT does not have the visual impact it once did, despite its improving dynamic ability. So, we'll give it to the techno-laden Lexus. The LS is good-looking this time around. It is more performance oriented. And it has all the attributes which makes a Lexus a Lexus.

Performance car awards typically go to Porsches and BMWs. For that reason and many others, the RS4 is the deserving candidate. OK, so the 911 Turbo is amazing. Shouldn't it be? If it wasn't amazing the news of it would be more noteworthy. The 335i would make a fine M3, but when each successive 3-series becomes more powerful and capable, it also loses some of its rawness. And besides, they're everywhere. The RS4 is a big step for Audi and a big step for the supersedan. It is a pure driving machine and not completely dependent on supreme power. Powerful though it may be.
Gotta give the green award to the Benz. Mercedes is pushing diesels worldwide and ought to be rewarded for their work. The diesels run smooth like a gas-powered engine, take you far on a tank, and don't pollute like they once did. Plus there's torque. Lots of it.

MORE HORSES, SMALL TUNEUPS, DOESN'T CUT IT

There is no denying that General Motors is on an upswing. But I'd love to meet the people who are going to buy a 2008 Hummer H2, 2008 Buick Lucerne Super, or Buick Lacrosse/Allure Super because of the following additional attributes.

• A barrel load of added horsepower in the Hummer
• Waterfall grilles and lower chromed grille openings on the Lacrosse
• 17 more horsepower in the Lucerne
• More chrome
• More portholes
• Added tow capacity (already 6,500 pounds, clearly not enough) for the Hummer
  
• Potentially improved efficiency when compared with previous models. No numbers required nor provided. Hummer and efficiency. Hmm
• New interior bits and bites for Hummer, likewise for Buick exterior

In early '07 Hummer sales had fallen 25%. Al Gore is doin' a job in Hollywood and Washington and perhaps that doesn't help Hummer. Buick says they sell cars to grown-ups who pay cash and are not credit challenged. They are virtuous, wonderful customers who appreciate and can purchase nicer things.

Ah yes, that generation that has about 5-15 years left of car purchasing ability. Or about 1-3 cars. Keep on attacking that market sector. What a demographic. Forget about me and every other non-grandparent. Hope, and I mean, hope, that Pontiac can pick us up.

OIL CHANGE RECOMMENDATIONS CHANGING

Ford Motor Company is the latest recommender of increasing the miles between your oil changes. For 2007 models and anything subsequent, Ford has said that 7,500 miles is sufficient. Ford gives credit to the oils even more than the improvements shown in engine technology as reasons for the altered recommendations. The days when new cars needed only 3000 or 5000 between oil changes is long gone. Many manufacturers, including Honda and GM, give no recommendations at all. They rely on sensors in most of their cars to tell you; because, after all, the life of every car is unique. GM's Peter Lord talked about the use of technology rather than across-the-board recommendations: 'We are absolutely confident of the technology. We back it with a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty now, so there's no doubt in our mind that this technology works." There's no doubt that elapsed time and the age of the vehicle can contribute to the misapplication of these recommendations. And, every carmaker phrases things a little differently. Nevertheless, there's no doubt that that engine technology and higher quality oil are contributing to you saving $ in the service departments.

IS THE GENESIS THE BEGINNING OF A NEW HYUNDAI?

Hyundai has released pictures of its future near-luxury sedan, the Genesis. Although clearly not Hyundai's genesis, this being 2007 and not 1967, the Genesis will mark yet another rebirth for Hyundai. The Sonata's, XG's, Azera, and even the non-NorAmer market Equus have nothing on the Genesis.

As mentioned in the first posting on this site, questions will undoubtedly arise in mainstream and enthusiast media, at auto shows and at kitchen tables. Hyundai puts a bit of a damper on the debate with its plans to keep base pricing under $30,000 USD. Over 300 horsepower from a V8-engined, rear-wheel drive vehicle with a driver-adjustable suspension and big wheels... it does sound good, ya gotta admit.

So the pictures reveal a big part of the equation - exterior appearance. This is a truly good-looking vehicle that wouldn't look out of place in a Lexus showroom although we're yet to find out if it would feel out of place.

ETHANOL

CNN says, "Ethanol ' the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" Really? Not so much. Tom Lasorda is the CEO of the Chrysler Group. LaSorda said, "We think this is the answer for America to lower our dependence on foreign oil."

We think this is the answer to lower our dependence. Two key words. I think many things, and I know fewer. And the lowering of something, the diminishing and decreasing, is not the same as the vanishing of the dependence.

Rick Wagoner is the Chairman and CEO of General Motors. He says, "This makes a big difference. There's nothing that can be done that can reduce the curb of growth of imported oil, and actually turn it down, like using E85."

Difference, reduce, turn it down. Them are key words, aren't they now. Mm-hmm, indeed. Kind of like turning down the volume on a stereo, you can make a big difference by reducing the volume when you turn down the knob. But until it is turned off then you still have sound.

CNN reported, 'Automakers said they could make half of their cars and trucks capable of running on alternative fuels by 2012 if there is enough availability and distribution of E85, an ethanol blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.'

Key words? Capable, if, alternative, enough availability. The United States of America has about 170,000 fuel-filling stations now. 1100 offer E85.

I don't portend to have the solution, but one such contributing factor to creating solutions is motivation. Personally, I'd be lacking motivation to buy an E85 vehicle (for its Ethanol-running qualities) when there are few stations that can meet its need. Those stations are unmotivated considering the fact that people don't want to buy the cars that need the stations. It's a two-directional circle. And manufacturers are, meanwhile, lacking serious motivation - or legislation - to produce the cars that stations can't fill and people don't need to buy.

Somebody will have to get down to business about this business.

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE...

...The more things stay the same. Porsche is likely to increase its stake in Volkswagen today. That makes big news, and it is. Keep in mind that Ferdinand Porsche was the designer of the original People's car, the Volkswagen Beetle. It is that Beetle that helped form the car that would carry the Porsche name. Because Ferdinand Porsche received a royalty on every Beetle that was ever built ( x 20million+), Porsche AG, operated by his son Ferry for quite some time, had a comfortable financial situation to help develop their sports car business.

Much of the power behind VW is held by Ferdinand Piech, son of Ferry's sister, therefore Ferdinand's grandson. Intelligence and eccentricity met together, and Ferdinand Piech was the result. Brilliant engineering decisions met with horrible marketing motives, and Ferdinand Piech was the cause. Anyway, Piech is a large shareholder in Porsche as well as being a force behind VW. Forget the formal titles. Piech is not 'permitted' to have decision-making ability at Porsche and he has had two successors at VW now, yet he manages to play the puppeteer with alacrity. And audacity. Piech is a paragon of German boardroom and backroom shaking and baking, but he engenders strong opinions.

So you see. Ferdinand basically jump-started both companies, and Ferdinand has control in 2007. Porsche and Piech. Grandfather and grandson.

UPDATE #2

Perhaps 200km yesterday around the western part of Prince Edward Island. The propensity in rural parts of the Island for choosing GM, Ford, and Chrysler products was relatively surprising. One average town showed me two Japanese cars. No other car was anything but domestic American. We drove to the northern most part of the Island to feel carbon neutral, with the sight of a couple dozen wind turbines along with the sight of fuel gauge in the V6-engined vehicle dropping. Ice flows took the place of meeting tides. Snow was melting quickly and the grass will soon begin to grow green, but we had the ability to walk out for dozens of metres onto the ocean.

Some vehicles had begun their chemical breakdown, as UV, saltwater, red dirt, and animals had their way. The local Tignish Shore Volkswagen museum displayed a lovely quartet of Jettas, as seen at right.

UPDATE #1

Yesterday's first 310km saw our transportation device (those are my friendliest words for the vehicle) maintain a fuel efficient pace. At the rate we're going and in the places we're driving, we will drive 550 km on the first tank, a 50L tank, and that tank will cost us $54.70.

Just before we crossed the Confederation Bridge, we saw flashing lights up ahead and dreaded a police check. It was actually bridge personnel directing large trucks off the highway. High winds on a low-sided bridge meant that high-sided trucks were not permitted. A few hours later 70 crossed together.

We saw two vehicles with which we had formerly crossed the fixed link: Volvo S40 and an Infiniti FX35. Ticking the option boxes that their owners had clearly ticked caused our vehicle to be a little more than one-third the price of the Volvo and less than one-third the FX.

Our low car was not affected by the winds on the bridge, but sightseeing from the security of our glassed and steeled in vehicle showed the ferocity of the tempest as the car shook enough to get us up on outta there.

TWO CARS, TWO SIZES, TWO WORLDS

Cadillac and Fiat have little connection. Apart from $2 billion, that's billion with a b, that Cadillac's parent GM gave Fiat not to buy it, Cadillac and Fiat do not enter into the same equations.

Word is reaching our ears, however, that Cadillac is fast-tracking a V12 engine closer to reality for a future XLS, aka the Sixteen concept. That would be one of the larger mass-produced cars on the planet. This news comes on the heels of photos of the Fiat 500, one of the smallest cars you'll see.

Fiat made the first 500, commonly remembered as the Cinquecento, nearly 50 years ago. Cadillac debuted the outlandish-but-intriguing Sixteen as a concept in 2003. If Cadillac ever wants to revive its ability to call itself 'The Standard of the World', they must offer something that competes with the best in the world. Fiat's full revival depends, as it always has, on its small cars. The Panda and Grande Punto have paved the way of excellence, but Fiat's most famous model will attract buyers, image, and a little money.

Cadillac will have to invest a large amount of money in a large car, with its accompanying large engine and large price to compete with Mercedes S-classes, BMW 7-series, Audi A8's and Maserati's Quattroporte. Investing large sums of money without impressive results equals large losses of money. If Cadillac insists on going forward, it is imperative that they enter the arena as the best, just to be considered.

Risk and reward. Cadillac could gain so much by a successful production version of the Sixteen, yet the losses could be awful. Fiat does not risk nearly as much, nor will they gain as much. They're chances of success is greater, but the success does not have the potential magnitude.

Cadillac and Fiat joined at the hip? Not so much.
----

The Good Car Guy is on an extended test-drive, a short-term vacation. Check back regularly, updates will always be attempted.

THE GROWTH SPURT OF ASTON MARTIN

In the two decades ending in the late 80's, Aston Martin had produced about 5,000 cars. Or, to put it another way, not as many cars in 20 years as Camrys sold in America in a week.

Now, fortunately for Aston, exclusivity and exotica go hand in hand with expense. Because a typical Aston Martin costs 5 or 10 times as much as the aforementioned Toyota Camry, selling fewer cars still makes for a reasonable business operation.

Aston Martin, recently sold by Ford after almost a couple decades of involvement, has a Porsche and BMW-bred boss, Dr. Ulrich Bez. Ulrich... or rather Dr. Bez, pardon - is an intelligent man. He says, "In 2000, we built 800 cars and if I had told you then that we would build 7,000 cars in 2006, you would have laughed at me." We may have, but, we would stop laughing now and admire the business model. A small lineup of the most beautiful cars; all sports-oriented; all purchased on emotional highs; all debuting to worldwide appreciation; all secondary stars to 007; all... you get the point.

Everybody likes a formerly forlorn British automaker that can complete a turnaround so impressive that money-losing Ford uses it to earn serious cash. Forty-score cars in 2000, 7 x 1000 this past year. That is an amazing rate of growth, and it is likely to hit a wall for two chief reasons: Aston Martin selling 5000 Vanquish's a week would be so very unexclusive and there are only so many consumers of $200,000 cars on this planet.


To make it nice and complicated, understand the point this way: to achieve the same growth spurt over a similar amount of time, Camry sales in the States would have risen to over 3 million. Put every person in the capital of Brazil in a Camry and you'd have it.

You can see why Ulrich...sorry, Dr. Bez, feels an connection with Toyota. Says he, "Toyota has carried out the same strategy that I introduced for Aston Martin in 2000. The foundation is quality, usability and reliability. Their strategy is very simple and they make very logical steps."
---
Beware, The Good Car Guy is on a long-term test drive (aka short vacation) starting the 22nd. Updates will be attempted. Check back regularly.

FAST CARS, CHEAP CARS, LUXURY CARS AND HEALTHY CARS?

Recent studies by Healthycar.org have shown the Chevrolet Cobalt to be the healthiest vehicle you can buy in the North American market. Chevy's own Aveo does abysmally on the test, but not as bad as the Nissan Versa.

Healthycar.org the most concering chemicals in cars include: "bromine (associated with brominated flame retardants); chlorine (indicating the presence of polyvinyl chloride, or PVC and plasticizers); lead; and heavy metals. Such chemicals have been linked to a wide range of health problems such as allergies, birth defects, impaired learning, liver toxicity, and cancer." Heat and UV rays cause the chemicals to break down and begin circulating.

It may all sound wonky to you, but these chemicals are used to increase the rigidity, durability, or flame resistance of the plastics and non-metallic parts in your car. Healthycar.org also says that these chemicals can do more than damage our health when we drive the car (for an average of 1.5 hr a day) but also when the cars are sent to junkyards, landfills, and incinerators.

The group used a portable X-ray Fluorescence device to analyze the basic composition of interior parts in over 200 vehicles. They do not claim that driving a Nissan Versa will make you cancerous or that a Chevrolet Cobalt will refashion your immune system to its best-ever state. They say the report is just a guide for comparison purposes.

These chemicals are contributors to that new car smell and help create the good feeling the automotive press has when they sit in a car with nice plastics. Some manufacturers are discovering ways to do this without the chemicals, and some manufacturers which display low chemical usage have yet to spread the doctrine to all factories.

HARD-TOP CONVERTIBLES STARTING TO LOOK GOOD

Hardtop convertibles are spreading like wildfire. In the modern era of carmaking, Mercedes-Benz and Peugeot started the trend with their two smallest convertibles. The trend has pushed past trendy and is now de rigeur. Ford's Euro-Focus has, in its model lineup, a hardtop cabrio. Peugeot and Renault both offer hardtops. Daihatsu has made the Copen, which looks to be a miniature version of the Audi TT... but with a hardtop.

BMW's next 3-series cabriolet will be covered in metal, and not cloth. Even GM has gotten into the game with their Pontiac G6 convertible. Mazda now offers a hardtop version of the venerable Miata, probably the best-packaged hardtop available. There are others, but yesterday I feasted my eyes upon one of the most, if not the most beautiful variations on the theme.

Volvo C70. Hot car. No, not the best handling convertible you can buy, not the fastest for the money, not the cheapest in its 'class'. However, the top is integrated wonderfully, the rear end has not taken on ungainly proportions, and the whole car has an aura of class that others can't match. Clean lines, nice detailing, proper proportions. Job well done by Volvo.

HOT TOYOTA YARIS NOT FOR NORTH AMERICA

Given the topic explored in the most recent posting, it is ironic that today we discover that Toyota will debut a far more sportatious Yaris. In Europe.

Yesterday I wrote about five awesome cars that are not available on this continent. The Toyota Yaris has been available in North America since the beginning of this millenium (as the Echo) in sedan, two-door, and hatchback configurations. The Yaris is becoming a fair bit cooler than the Echo could ever have dreamed of being.

We must, nevertheless, be content with 106 horsepower and a somewhat soft suspension while across the pond you would have the option to buy a Yaris fully eqipped with a spoiler, side skirts, sports exhaust, LED taillights, deep bumpers and bigger wheels.

And, oh yeah, about 24% more power. Wouldn't you think that as the Yaris increases in popularity over here that displaying a cool Yaris would be a good idea?

FULL-TIME POSITION, TEMPORARY, CUSHY OFFICE, NO BENEFITS?

Recently, Car & Driver magazine tested a Nissan Altima Hybrid. The Altima's greenest version takes a lot of its technology (and the research behind it) from Toyota. The hardware is very similar to what Toyota offers in the Camry Hybrid, but optimized for the Altima.

Nissan, in the States, does not price the Altima Hybrid at too terrible a premium. A basic Altima (four-cylinder, CVtransmission) would cost $20,915 and the hybrid will likely be around $24,400.

Unfortunately, when the purposes of a vehicle come to no fruition, we have a very inconvenient truth. Car & Driver tested that typical Altima four-cylinder and, by their trustworthy measurements, drove 24 miles for every gallon. The Altima Hybrid was only able to propel them 23 miles for every gallon gulped.

Ouch.

One possible reason could the 398 extra pounds the Hybrid places on the scales. Both vehicles were tested by the automotive press, the former during a comparison test, the Hybrid by itself.

By way of disclosure... the EPA says the run-of-the-mill Nissan Altima is rated at 23/29 miles per gallon in the city and highway and the Hybrid is 42/36 city and highway. Last summer, I drove a Ford F-150 for 1 week and averaged 18 mpg, exactly what www.fueleconomy.gov said I would. I coasted down almost every hill to do get 18mpg, but I did it.

That being said, a Hybrid will offer cleaner tailpipe emissions and in most cases save money at the pumps. What it may not do is actually save you money over the life of the vehicle when you factor in the cost of the vehicle. Car & Driver's example would cost more to buy and more to fuel. Bad car? Not so much. Odd car? For sure.

THE PROLIFERATION OF THE NICHE VEHICLE

Remember when it came time to buy a new car and you decided between small, midsize, or large? Unless you wanted a two-door, or perhaps a convertible. Trucks, or anything with flat load floors like an SUV, did not take up 50% of sales, and the choices were mostly domestic and limited.

Now there's the BMW X6, Mercedes-Benz CLS, Peugeot 1007, Isuzu VehiCROSS, Honda Element and many more. The X6, yet to be introduced as a production vehicle but being fast-tracked to the auto shows, is a 'coupe-inspired SUV'.

CLS-class Benz's are a 'four-door' coupe, which makes it two doors heavier than every other coupe. Cool car, nonetheless.

Peugeot's wonky 1007 is a supermini with mini-van style sliding doors, carrying a smart fortwo kind of image. Doesn't work quite as well.

The VehiCROSS came and went from the US market after three years of intentionally limited sales. Attempting, somehow, to be an exotic SUV for the SUV maker that Isuzu was, the VehiCROSS was techy and capable off-road, but with two-doors and limited practicality, it was never going to win much praise.

Honda's Element is a great vehicle, potentially more useful than the CR-V on which it is based. Sharing much of what lies underneath, the Element goes to full-on cube dimensions and looks funky.

Manufacturers want to exercise their ability to sell multiple vehicles with similar architecture by marketing niche vehicles to people who really want something different. In 2007, people buy cars that they love and reject cars that they hate. However, anything that treads the middle road, and inspires neither reaction, may not sell at all. The goal is to create vehicles, such as the E-class Mercedes and the CLS-class, that cater to different buyers while basically being the same vehicle underneath. E550 = normal. CLS550 = niche.

FOLLOWING THE HYPE?

Hybrids, hydrogen, diesel, electric, internal combustion, oil sands and on and on and on.

The hybrids on the market now are generally showcased for their clean(er) emissions, fuel efficiency, and even performance. Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, and GM all supply the market with gasoline/electric vehicles. Hybrids have taken a hit recently for not achieving projected efficiency ratings. Plug-in hybrids, such as the Chevrolet Volt concept, have a lot of people excited. Less dependency on the engine, more emphasis on supplying the battery by plugging the car in, just as you would your cellular phone.

Hydrogen may be a long way off but Honda wants to furnish a small selection customers with their FCX in the near future. Honda even wants to provide these test-bed clients with the infrastructure to fuel the vehicles themselves, directly from their home gas supply. Hydrogen's big problem is the lack of widespread infrastructure for refueling and the inability to bring the technology down in cost. Honda's current FCX likely cost hundreds of thousands to build.

We all know of about diesel tech, or lack thereof from its past foray in North America. Take the fuel economy a diesel has always been able to achieve and link it with quiet, smooth operation and shiploads of torque and boatloads of horsepower.... and you get the modern diesel. They need to be cleaner for future viability.

The typical gasoline engine is making great strides in efficiency itself, especially in terms of emissions. Many new vehicle debuts in recent months have shown higher-powered engines in heavier vehicles with improved fuel economy.

The world's oil reserves then comes into question. Regardless of how efficient the engine is, if it runs on fossil fuels, there must be fossil fuels to refine.

Email goodcarbadcar@gmail.com or leave a comment in the informants section below to tell the Good Car Nation what you think we'll be driving in 2017 or 2022. A lot of hype surrounds all of the aforementioned modes of propulsion, but to which hype do you yield?

DON'T IGNORE THE HORSES

Some people ask me questions about car-buying decisions. Seems like a good idea to check with the informants and the addicts. I am obliged, regardless of the type of vehicle we're discussing or the type of person I'm discussing with, to mention horsepower. And there is a certain percentage of these people that say, "Oh I don't care about horsepower. Doesn't matter to me."

Pause for a few minutes and take a deep breath. Collect yourselves. The Good Car Nation is frightened by such ignorance of appaloosas and arabians and clydesdales and palaminos and mustangs. Breathe deep. We did not all enter this posting realizing that there are people, car driving people, who do not care for horsepower. Or torque.

Oh let me tell you - they enjoy it when they feel the horses pulling. They hate it when not all horses are responding adequately. But they say, "How many cupholders does it have?", and "Is there an extra cubic foot of trunk room in the other one?"

Horsepower affects us all. For those of you who are reading and feel that strongly about cupholders and that, umm, weakly about horsepower, just keep reading.

Horsepower manifests itself differently in every automobile. Even the same engine can feel different in different cars simply because of power-to-weight ratios. Putting a few dozen horsepower in a smart fortwo is relatively sufficient. The same engine in a Honda Civic would feel lifeless and in any Buick would be already pronounced dead.

Take an engine with similar statistics and you can still have remarkably different automobiles. Two prime examples are the Honda Civic Si and the Volkswagen GTI - a Rabbit to us, a Golf to others.

GTI - 200 horsepower. Civic Si - 197. We'll call it even. The Civic is a few thou cheaper, but these two cars are direct competitors with fiercely different characteristics.

The best part is just that: the GTI and the Civic Si have personality. Strikingly different. The unfortunately all-too-common test drive taken gingerly around city streets sometimes means that the right-most pedal does not meet the floorboard as often as it is meant to. If you drive around town with the GTI throttle half-depressed most of the time, and do the same with the Si, you will most definitely assure yourself and everyone around you that the GTI can fly and the Si just doesn't feel like it's got the horses.

The reason is simple. Look at your tachometer as you read this... somehow. The Honda achieves its full horsepower rating at 7800rpm. That's quite likely higher than your car even revs. So if your car revs to 6400rpm, consider that the Civic climbs another 1400rpm before it makes all its power. In other words, drive the Honda Civic Si like you stole it, pedal to the metal all day, and it will feel amazingly wicked fast. Drive it like you generally drive, with revs around 3500 before you shift, and the Civic will feel remarkably normal. Not such a bad thing when you check your fuel bill.

The GTI, on the other hand, makes its max horsepower rating at 5100 rpm and its steady at 200 horses until 6000rpm. This is why keeping the revs substantially lower than the Civic will still have fast-moving results.

Add to this fact that torque plays a big part. Some people would tell you to pay a lot more attention to torque than horsepower, anyway. The GTI's torque number is 207, and it produces that number as low as 1800rpm, and carries it on a plateau through 5000rpm. The Civic? 139 lb-ft at 6200rpm. Interesting.

A few reasons why this is the case:

• The Volkswagen uses forced induction (turbocharging and supercharging, in this instance, a turbo only)
• The Honda does not
• The Honda revs to the moon
• The GTI does not
• The Honda is a Honda, and Soichiro Honda loved a high-revving car because it reminded him of his racing cars
• The GTI is built to provide a more mature, relaxed driving experience. To do so, you need to have a torquey engine
• The Si is great on a track, because keeping that engine 'on the boil' is ideal for track driving, revs always work in that situation

There are a few simple ways to remember how horsepower can be uniquely achieved. Forced induction is one, whether by a turbo or a supercharger or even both. Increased revs, or a higher redline, is another. If an engine can be built to maintain the friction and fast-moving parts without blowing its top, increased revs will produce more horsepower. Displacement is a very common way to add horses. You've all heard of those 1980's Mustangs with their 5.0litre engine. Well, they're talking about displacement - how much space the pistons have to move up and down. More technological ways include things like Honda's VTEC and BMW's VANOS which adjust the valve timing of an engine.

Horsepower is not meant to be ignored, but enjoyed.

WALKING A FINE LINE

Apologies for the sports analogy, but can you imagine, I mean, can you IMAGINE Peyton Manning getting to the Superbowl a few weeks back and saying something like this: "We are certainly concerned. We have just been doing our job naturally, and the numbers merely came about as a result. We have never said the Colts wants to be No. 1, and we do not give such orders to our employees."

My firm belief is that you can't imagine it. You can't fathom the possibility. You refuse to visualize the interview.

Replace two words with just one word, and you have a collection of quotes from Hiroshi Okuda. Peyton Manning of the Colts never said that stuff, but Toyota Motor Corp's Okuda actually did.

But don't blame him! Toyota has to dominate without acting like a dominator. They must make money while acting like they don't have enough cash reserves to buy General Motors and Ford outright. Toyota must needs go the way of feigned humility into near self-degradation.

Ridiculous, I know. The reasons centre on the views of the American people. At this time Toyota is more than welcome to take some odd 15% of the American market. About half the cars Toyota sells in the States are imported. You can figure out where the other half come from, and that second half gives Billy Joe in Normal, Illinois a right good down deep feeling about the Japanese powerhouse.

Toyota is quickly on the verge of displacing one very American fixture as numero uno on the list of the planet's automotive producers. GM, in the midst of what seems like a successful turnaround, can't compete with the vast reach of Toyota's multitudinous marketing angles.

"California, get rid of your smog with a Prius."

"Aspen, you folks need an all-wheel drive Lexus to battle those snowy driveways."

"Europe, y'all want some funk in your small cars... so check it. Aygo."

"Canadian males. Look at this, eh. Forget completely that Ford used to show you trucks all Saturday night and see the beauty of a real man's truck. All Saturday evening."

On one hand, Toyota gives you environmental awareness. On the other, monstrous hi-po pickup trucks and a bunch of 7-passenger SUV's. On another hand, although the third hand is generally hard to find, is some performance. No MR2 or Celica, but a 268bhp RAV4? Apparently each replacement model gains 100 horses. A fourth hand shows you the ultimate in serene luxury with Lexus and the progenitor of the youth-mobiles at Scion. There are fifth and sixth and seventh hands kickin' around somewhere.

All of this goes on and Toyota has to act like they don't wanna sell more cars than anybody else. They offer a massive range of automobiles and must manifest themselves as unselfish. Because, after all, nobody goes into business wanting to make money..... or, umm, wait a second.

Toyota is terrified of an American backlash when, not if, they become #1. OK, I'll give them that. But last I checked, it's not simply immigrants to the USA that are buying the Camry. Upon last survey, there were Toyota dealerships in the middle of Kansas selling cars to a middle-American on a middle-income with a mid-size family. Something makes me wonder from where, or how, this massive backlash will hit Toyota.

Billy Joe buys a Camry for his wife. Billy Joe buys a Tacoma for work. Toyota becomes the biggest carmaker in the world. Billy Joe sells both his Toyotas?

Oh, and did you hear? Coca-Cola is now urging all carbonated beverage drinkers to switch to Pepsi. And Microsoft is really terrified of the whole 'running the world' thing, so they want us all to have an iPod and an iMac. No Zunes, no Vista.

Whatever. I understand Toyota's plight, and their fear of the unknown. I won't understand if a backlash really does occur.

ROOTING FOR THE CONDEMNED

Toronto Maple Leafs, Andy Roddick, Adidas, and General Motors. Consider them the theme-runners in each of their respective arenas. All decent at what they do. More than decent really.

But they are all chronic underachievers, or at least appear to underachieve when contrasted with that which is dominant in their field: Ottawa Senators, Club Fed, Nike, and Toyota. We, as I speak for most of us, root for the Maple Leafs when they do well, cheer when Roddick wins a tournament, buy some Adidas outerwear, and want GM to do well. But - and you knew it was coming - they just aren't worthy of complete praise.

I can't recall the last time I told somebody the Maple Leafs would win the Stanley Cup. I've never told anybody that Andy Roddick would most definitely win at Wimbledon. I automatically purchase Nike basketball shoes, and I haven't placed my star of approval on many new General Motors automobiles. Silverado/Sierra, Suburban/Yukon, Corvette. Bring it.

Yet, in everyday conversation with a critic whose harshness against GM knows no bounds, I said something like, "Ya know, I think GM could actually turn it around sometime soon. They have introduced some almost cool cars lately. Some of their upcoming stuff is cool."

The harsh critic said, "Oh."

I'm actually serious, though. Last year at this time we heard that GM lost $6.6 billion in one fiscal quarter. Ouch, and indeed, eek. Today's news? GM earned $950 million in the equivalent quarter versus that $6.6 billion loss. Forget about one-time earnings and such things and GM still earned $180 million.

It's really quite interesting, isn't it? We could all give five or ten reasons why GM needed to be buried, but when GM does well even the press gets excited. Chevrolet, GMC, Pontiac, Cadillac, Saturn, Saab, Hummer, Buick, Vauxhall, Opel, and Holden drivers get excited. I don't drive a GM product, and the last one I did apparently went awry not long after I was done with it.

However, Pontiac will introduce a production version of the G8 before long. I gotta say it: hot car. It's a redone Holden but engineered and designed from the beginning to drive and look like a Pontiac should. No, the Saturn Aura is NOT deserving of North American car of the year. The British press have since mocked the fact that this re-badged Vauxhall Vectra could muster enough of a re-styling to earn the praise of North American media. Really, it is better than a Vectra.

It takes a really good regular mid-sizer or a mid-sizer of a higher notch like the G8 to earn stockholders favour and, more importantly the favour of consumers. Corvette Z06? Awesome, amazing, audacious... but it has no effect on me. Saturn Sky? Looks great, drives well, but the vast majority of the car-buying public, even the younger public, is not interested in 2-seaters with no trunk room.

I want to see new tech such as was introduced by the Chevrolet Volt. It would be nice to see the next Malibu drive as nice as it looks. Most anything would be an improvement on the looks and the driving the current Malibu offers.

The Leafs will not win the Stanley Cup this year. They may not make the playoffs, but we all want them to. A-Roddick can destroy Gasquet in the second set at the Pacific Life, but he won't win Wimbledon. Going out on a limb, I am.

GM could earn money every quarter this year. Not so long and unstable a limb when I say 'could'.

SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE

Perhaps it is possible, plausible or probable that the writer was just trying to find a few positive things about Chrysler's new Sebring.... but nevertheless, it does irk me to no end.

He was nigh unto closing the piece of otherwise informing automotive journalism when he made mention that the Sebring has a cooling/heating cupholder. It pleased him no end that his Starbucks was kept at 134 degrees, fahrenheit, that is.

C'mon already. I suppose it sounds unbalanced for me to suggest that I do not want to be informed about all generalities. I think a heated or cooled cupholder is great. The issue I have is this: will anybody, in the mid-size marketplace or any other sector, ever buy a vehicle because of the heated/cooled cupholder? I am skeptical.

In fact, I wonder if anybody, when between a rock (Malibu) and a hard place (Sebring), finds that a heated Starbucks will....finally... push ... the ....decision...the Sebring's way. Of course I want a well-equipped car, but when carmakers try and push a car at me that looks suitable for the ugly awards of 1997 just because it has a hard drive and a cool cupholder? No, not so much for me.

Sell me a car because it's a good car. You won't need to impress me with amazing cupholders, new technology for folding down the rear seat, or better yet: convincing me it looks like one of your cool cars. I can figure that one out myself, if indeed it's true. Which it's not.

Did anybody buy the Chrysler 300 because of heated cupholders? Skeptical, I am again. Despite attempts to sell the car based on Boston Acoustics, did anybody justify their purchase of a 300C with that line of reasoning? No, the 300 looks like something Al Capone would have driven; it looks like a car where 22-inch wheels belong; and for a big car it's fun to drive.

Al Capone would not have driven a Sebring. The first person that puts 22-inch wheels on a Sebring will take them off in disgust...immediately. And you'd have more fun tuning your MyGig than driving this car.

TWO GOOD CARS

Popularity, in the automotive industry, almost always breeds popularity. There are exceptions to the rule - especially in terms of popular colours quickly becoming passe after becoming insanely hip, and vehicles which became 'cool' for retirees, thence making a hasty exit from the to-drive list for under-30's.

However, in the case of small cars from Mazda and Honda; people will buy a Civic or 3 (nee Protege) simply because people bought Civics and 3's. Differentiating themselves from Cavaliers (popular because dealers offered thousands of $ off) or Crown Vics (fleet-oriented sales), the Honda and Mazda are popular, in the first place, because they are good cars. Let the nation of informants for the furtherance of the good car go forward and advise.

Who hasn't suggested the purchase of a Civic or 3 to their searching friend, sister, or co-worker? Seriously, who hasn't? Even if you are in the sector of Accords and 6's or Benz's and Bimmers, you would tell anybody looking for a sub-20K car to test-drive one, the other, or both.

Reasons why:

• History of quality and reliability
  
• Perceived quality (you may not know how well-built the wheel bearings are, but you do know that lux-feel stereo controls suggest the wheel bearings are built well)
• Contemporary exterior appearance
• Nobody mocks a Honda Civic or Mazda 3 buyer
• Comfortable on a cross-country trip while also being.....
• Surprisingly fun to drive
• Zoom-Zoom
• Nothing, or very little, that can totally turn you off making the purchase

Stop the Honda/Mazda sales consultant when he attempts to convince you to buy a car that is already all over the roads.... IF the car they're putting you in is silver. They'll call it something different. Alabaster Silver Metallic. Give me a break.

Meeting yourself coming the other way 10,000 times per trip is fine if you're in a good car. Doing so in silver is unacceptable.

CAN HYUNDAI REALLY PULL IT OFF?

IS there any reason they can't? Rumours from those who ruminate say Hyundai will unveil a luxury sedan at the New York show this year. The car will not be a replacement for the Azera, but slot into the lineup above the recently introduced flagship to become Hyundai's true high-end product.

Dozens of questions spring immediately to mind, but chiefest among the queries is simply: Will people buy a Hyundai that competes with Lexus and the Japanese and Audi and the Germans at their price level? We've seen Hyundai equip their cars like a luxury vehicle, offer the horsepower of a luxury vehicle, but not price them like a luxury vehicle.

I doubt the looks will be Hyundai-challenging circa 1990's, nor will the appearance knock your socks off. Keep it simple and handsome when you enter a new market sector.Hyundai's perceived quality isn't Lexus-like, but the rate of improvement they've shown in every car they introduce is unmatched by any other company.

The horses must be present and accounted for under the hood. Driven wheels will have to be the two rear-most or all four. Pricing will have to undercut not only similarly sized opponents (likely 7-series, S-class, and A8) but also competitors a few belt sizes down the line.

Perceptions have changed toward Hyundai and Kia. They are chomping at the bit for rapid advancement. The marketing department can do whatever they like. The warrant can be for the life of the vehicle. It can be fast, handle on rails, and massage my neck, but if it ain't ahead of the curve in some way or form, sales will not follow.

First things first. What does it look like? We'll know soon, and very soon.