skip to main |
skip to sidebar
June of 2007 will be forever remembered as a real doozy for General Motors, quite awful for Ford Motor Company, and not nearly as terrible for Chrysler. All three had disappointing months in sales, although Chrysler had comparably 'good' news.Previously named 'The Big Three', Detroit's automakers struggled with higher fuel prices than June of '06 which causes an inevitable drop in large SUV and truck sales. (A bigger problem than the drop in sales of the large trucks and SUV's is the fact that those are the worst vehicle categories in which GM and Ford can suffer declines. They offer the largest profit margins and support 'car' R&D.) For the purposes of full disclosure, do remember April's post regarding Detroit's desire to free themselves of fleet sales dependence.
One General Motors spokeperson also suggested that last June's huge 72-hour sell-off could make this June look worse than it really was. Attempts have also been made to manumit the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra from heavy incentives. At the same time, Toyota increased incentives, such as 60-month zero percent financing. Silverado and Sierra sales dropped 20 percent - June over June. That sucks. These are GM's new full-size pickups, the prime of their product lines. GM laid about $3,600 on the hood of their two trucks, whereas Toyota had $5,000 on the Tundra.Saturn's Outlook and its crossover brethren, the GMC Acadia and good-looking Buick Enclave, are apparentl
y selling faster than the factories can build them. Overall, General Motors were 21.3% lower in June of 2007 when compared with June of 2006.Ford was pushed to the ground, but not kicked nearly as hard. Sales were down 8.1%, which George Pipas attributed solely to their reduction in sales to rental companies. Chrysler's car sales went up 55% but plummeting truck sales negated any possible gains. Ironically, Chrysler suggests the jump was caused by their emphasis on fuel efficiency in ad campaigns. The reverse seems to be true as well - the obvious awkwardness of emphasizing its truck's inefficiency. However, Jeep sales rose 19% June over June. The new four-door Wrangler is a big help. Inefficient or not.Japan's big three produced and sold vehicles at a furious rate this June. Nissan sales were up 22.7%; Honda sold at an 11.5% higher rate; and Toyota realized a 10.2% increase. Honda's Civic, Fit, and CR-V sold especially well in June. That would be their two smallest cars and their small sport-ute. Sales of America's favourite car, the Toyota Camry, were up by a dozen and a half points.
Webster's offers multiple definitions for the word 'rogue'. A dishonest or worthless person. Ouch. An individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation. Eek. A
horse inclined to shirk or misbehave. So much negativity.Since 'rogue' comes off as inferior, worthless, and dishonest; Nissan decided to call their X-Trail replacement - their smallest SUV in the booming American small-crossover market- the Rogue. The Nissan Rogue can be called the shirking, worthless, inferior, dishonest delinquent in the cute-ute crowd. Other markets use Qashqai, a nomadic Iranian tribe. Nissan had hoped that their soft roader would be driven by nomadic young people, but it seems they figure the American Qashqai buyer is more likely to buy a dishonest and inferior biological variation....Instead of the negative nouns, Ford is sticking with the same name for the same vehicle that will likely be called 'all-new' when the commercials hit the air. While Ford's home market
dealerships - that'd be in the USA - languished with an old Focus, other markets received a completely new car that shared some bits with the Volvo S40. Ford will refresh the Focus again, this time for 2008. We first saw the same basic Focus in...what, 2001? It feels like 1996 and the Escort all over again. Refresh, at best. The latest edition will look somewhat different but carryover with the same old stuff. The Focus is still a pleasure to drive, but not all commuters spend their hard earned $ just to drive. They sit, chauffeur, eat, drink, and live in their cars. Ford seems to zoom in on Europe and decides to make great new cars like the Mondeo and S-Max, but the latest edition of the Focus should instead be named the Ford Distracted......
The next Mercedes supercar will likely not be named SLR and will almost definitely not be linked to, designed by, or associated with McLaren. Nobody wanted a supercar with a beak. Ironically, McLaren's Formula 1 team is just beginning to tear up the opposition with Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton, as discussed on GCBC back in June. (See that story here.) Mercedes will stick with in-house tuner AMG for their next flagship......
The Sierra Group groupies within Toyota Motor Corp clearly lost the large-SUV battle when it came to the next Sequoia. Having been a member of the Tundra family for a number of years, the Sequoia will step up in size and power because that's what the Tundra pickup had to do to compete. This #1 automaker in the world, blossoming under the light of its Hybrid Synergy Drive, makes more of the transportation devices (cars and trucks, that is) that contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than anybody else.....Audi will build A3 convertibles in Hungary beginning in 2008...... Volkswagen has shown images of its p
roduction Tiguan. Had the Tiguan been around for the Honda/VW tennis match, it would have been a direct rival for the CR-V or Acura RDX. Naturally, the folks at Volks have positioned the Tiguan as an upscale vehicle, thereby pricing it above the CR-V and Toyota RAV4. However, the badge does still say VW, not Audi......BMW's smallest self-badged car, the 1-series, will come to across the Atlantic within the next year. Built as a two-door coupe, rather than the 3 and 5 door hatches seen elsewhere, the 6-cylinder cars will offer serious speed in a small package. BMW's will always remain expensive, but this will be an easier mode of entry into the world of ultimate driving machines. More frugal models like the 120d are not in the plans.
Despite the fact that you put your complete trust in me, The Good Car Guy, to help develop your car opinions; assist in your vehicular decisions; and keep you up 
to date with all automotive abominations - you do need to drive cars for yourself.
Reading about cars, trucks, sport-utes, vans, and crossovers has helped me a great deal. As far as the Nissan Versa goes, however, other members of the auto press have let me down. They've laid out their impressions, performed their testing procedures, and offered them up for me to read. But, Nissan's latest small-car is better than what you and I have been led to believe.
Here's another but. The Versa is not better than expected in the way a BMW 335i exceeds expectations. It does not over-perform like a new Hyundai Veracruz. Nope. I was told the Versa was ugly, cheap, and boring. It is ugly. It is boring. But it isn't actually all that cheap. The BMW is even faster and smoother than expected. The Veracruz is even more luxurious and Lexus-like than you could have imagined. The Versa? Well, it's not nearly as chintzy you reckoned.
The Good Car Girl and I were scheduled for two trips to Prince Edward Island with departure dates from our home only eight days apart. The odometer of the Versa showed 748 kilometres upon return to the capital of Nova Scotia. The climate was dreadful - the Versa had little tanning opportunity on PEI beaches. Front and rear screen wipers were well tested. The rear wiper was particularly worthy of celebration.
Another positive which was unable to miss: Abundant space. In the front and rear passenger holds as w
ell as the cargo bay, accessed via the rear hatch. Granted, this car - Nissan's small car in North America - is taller than Nissan's own midsize Altima. Space isn't everything, but do remember, Nissan's 'bigger' Sentra only offers four more cubic feet of interior space.
(In-car pics from northern Nova Scotia. Exterior - PEI.)
The Versa's 122 horsepower is class competitive, in a class that includes the Chevy Aveo, Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Hyundai Accent, and Kia Rio. All of which are hundreds of pounds lighter. A typical on-ramp sequence goes like this: hyper throttle tip-in causes me to think we're accelerating quickly; I soon discover the 4-speed automatic transmission is sapping power as second gear slushes in; we are still approaching 80km/h at a decent pace; Christmas will come sooner than 110 km/h.
Put it this way. As compared to Yaris, Fit, et al; the extra torque and horsepower provided by Nissan's 1.8 litre four-cylinder is a nice benefit when accelerating from city stoplights. Once we arrive at a cruising highway clip though, 122 bhp being sent to the front wheels via a power-sapping automatic can't overcome 2700 pounds. So, the + is decent city acceleration. The big minus is pitiful highway passing power. Pitiful.
Back inside the car, most switches and controls impressed for such a low buck automobile. The steering wheel was one of the nicest in a sub $20K car I've ever experienced. Seating material is an initially impressive faux suedeish stuff. Initially impressive? Just. It looks expensive. But then friction causes your denim or khaki to cling to the junk when you simply wish to slightly rearrange your position. Insert *scream* here.For a 5'2" female, the pedal positioning was apparently 'perfect'. Perfect, she said? Perfect? For a slightly taller-than-average male with size 11 shoes, pedal positioning was abysmal. The go-pedal was so close to the floor that only my toe could thrust the car forward. That's ankle twisting stuff. The brake pedal, in contrast to the throttle, was perched at a decent height. But it is so much closer to the driver than the gas that each switch from go to stop involved a thigh pullback on the ultra-cling seats. Place next *scream* here.
Screaming done. The off-ramp from the Trans-Canada towards the Dieppe Airport in New Brunswick was a wide, sweeping right hander which showed the true dynamic plight of the Versa. Understeer. What small front-driver doesn't understeer? There was some vibration coming through the wheel and pedals, but the flip side was a speck of feel. Feel? I thought I said this car was boring. And GCBC never attaches feel and boredom.
Feel is limited. The boredom stems from ugliness on the outside, the dark palette inside, the inability to quickly pass slow-moving traffic, and expected outside front wheel plowing. The Versa faces two strong competitors. Nissan's own Sentra is not too high up the pricing ladder and offers more 'prestige', if that's what you call that trait at this level. The Honda Fit is another surprisingly spacious small hatchback with stronger on-road dynamics.
The Versa is versatile. No doubt about that. It is also extremely capable in the daily grind of chores, errands, and commutes. Nevertheless, what do young; hip; urban; first-time buyers want? Fun. Nissan locked up the fun inside the 350Z.
Once powerful, preeminent, and precious to many, the Ford Explorer now seems to be precious to nobody. At one time, not so long ago, Ford's midsize sport-ute was a perennial #3 on the American automotible sales charts.
Times they are a'changin'. Through the first five months of 2007, the Explorer has plummeted to #46. Wa
nt to hear more newsworthy statistics? There are no midsize SUV's in the top 20 and sales of vehicles like the Explorer, Chevrolet Trailblazer, and Toyota Highlander have dropped 43% since 1997.
J.D. Power says just 5% of American car and truck sales are midsize SUV's and only 17% of midsize SUV owners are trading in like-for-like. Although it may seem to you as though there are hulking SUV's everywhere, consumers aren't the only ones steering clear. Just two years ago there were 22 non-luxury midsize SUV's for sale, six more than at present......The Volvo XC90 treasure hunt mentioned by The Good Car Guy on May 2nd has gone slightly awry. A Russian woman, Alana Zvereva, made her way through the online puzzles and real-life treasure hunt to win the competition, with a reward of the XC90 and $50,000 in gold coins. However, the company Volvo contracted to bury the treasure and coordinate the find near Gibraltar found
a real treasure. The government of Spain put a stop to Odyssey Marine Exploration's efforts (as well as their Volvo work), thereby delaying Zvereva from collecting her prize - XC90 keys and her gold. Spanish authorities obviously deem themselves to be the owners of whatever is found at the bottom of their part of the ocean......Ferrari is celebrating its 60th year in business. They've held the special conco
urs, introduced a special 612 Scaglietti, donated $296,000 - by way of auctioning Ferrari memorabilia - to pediatric clinics around Modena, and created a new web TV station. Hip, and indeed, hooray.....
Tiger wasn't cutting it at Buick. The world's best golfer, Tiger Woods has been Buick's pitchman since 1999. He's set to earn about $8million more with General Motors before 2009, but will now be used in OnStar ads and other GM-wide advertising rather than linking solely with Buick. Although golfing is a hot ticket for Buick-driving geriatric Floridians, Tiger doesn't seem to jibe with that image. He's 31, married to a former model, and doesn't look right in a Buick Lucerne.....
Automakers are apparently ticked off at the US Senate for passing a bill requiring 35 mpg average for all cars and trucks. The much weaker present standards are 27.5 and 22.2 miles per gallon averages for cars and trucks respectively. Senators want this to be effective by 2020. I drove a Nissan Versa 468 miles on a test drive last weekend (read about it real soon on GCBC) and averaged 33.6 mpg. This is 2007.....
Honda vs. Volkswagen will be back soon. The Nissan Versa - Driven, will be on the front page in short order as well.
It was Explorers of this generation that sold so well
Jeep and Hummer versus Mazda and smart. That kind of comparison sounds complicated, complex, convoluted even. Get this - we're not talking about the rumoured (in history) of the smart formore, nor are we discussing Jeep's baby Compass.
Nope. Not in the least. The purpose of the post is to see how great the contrast is between a Jeep Grand Cherokee, a Hummer H3, Mazda's 3 and the smart fortwo. Granted, we will
talk about the Grand Cherokee diesel, the smart fortwo diesel, and the gasoline-powered editions of both the Mazda and Hummer.
Environmentalists would lead you to believe that SUV's are bringing down the planet. (They happen to be ignoring the airplanes they use to fly around the country so that they can tell you about the bad SUV's, but that's another story.) Meanwhile, there is no dearth of justifiers for sport-utes on the planet. Farmers, boat-towers, horse owners and many others will tell you that all the smart's and Prius' and hi-po Lexus limo hybrids will never save the world from its fever.
Isn't there some room in between the extremists? What about applying some bare-bones mathematics in order to answer the questions that arise. There are a number of issues that come to my mind; long after viewing the Energuide statistics or the EuroUnion CO2 figures. Here's a few of them:
- People mpg, or people litres/100km in the case of this post
- Combined effect on humanity. Ya can't blame one Hummer owner for creating the poor air quality my part of the world will suffer through today
- Quantifiable life-long usage facts
Driven in typical circumstances by an average driver in a normal climate, the Hummer H3 will use about 13.6 litres of fuel every time it drives 100 kilometers. Jeep's Grand Cherokee, when equipped with a diesel engine, will drink 10.5 litres of diesel fuel every time the vehicle travels 100 kilometres. A Mazda3? 7.3L/100km. smart's fortwo diesel will sip just 4.2L/100km.
Put another way, it would take about three smarts to use as much fuel as the Hummer. You could almost afford to fuel two Mazda3's for the cost of fueling your Hummer. Beyond that, diesel fuel is about 11 cents cheaper than regular gasoline in my city. The 600 km round trip I recently took to Prince Edward Island would have cost $64.89 CDN in the Grand Cherokee CRD. The Hummer H3 would have cost $92.20. Oh, my Mastercard would have been charged with a total of $25.96 in the smart fortwo. Ouch.
But there's more to it than that. If you think of peoplelitres/100km and filled the smart with two people, you're sipping at just 2.1PL/100km. The Hummer would fare much better if considered as a passenger-filled sport utility - per passenger the Hummer would use just 2.72 litres each. The Jeep would be the smart's equivalent and the Mazda would be even better, at just 1.46 litres each.
Does this mean the Sierra Group and the Green Party should love Hummers ? Maybe no. But full Hummer H3's are actually an
efficient means of traveling. There's no denying that five people in a Hummer arrive at any destination in a more efficient manner than one person in his smart fortwo.
However, a Hummer which has never met its owners wife and kids is an awfully ineffective means of transportation.
Skew the debate to the smart's side, and things get ugly. Take five smart fortwo owners who love carpooling. They drive their buddies to work every day. The five Mazda 3 owners across the street can't stand the thought of someone else drinking coffee in their zoom-zoom machine, hence they travel alone. The roundtrip commute is 30 kilometres. All the smart's combined use just 6.3 litres to make the journey. The five Mazda's suck up 10.95 litres. The smart, remember, was being used as a carpooling machine, and therefore each person uses just .63 litres per day. Each single-passenger Mazda uses 2.19 litres each day.
This has little to do with real life, but it does show how quickly efficiency/economy/effectiveness can be altered by extra passengers. It also proves the depth of difference thousands of tiny cars can make when purchased instead of a regular small car.
That's enlightening. Now go check my math.
"Everything in moderation", my big brother said to me a couple weeks back. He was talking about Coca-Cola, butter, and french fries in relation to his marathoner's body. By contextual realignment, let me apply his statement thus: there are some habits - design, styling, accessorizing - in the automotive world that are 'good in their own way', but when taken to an extreme..... not so much.
They are the expression of personal preference. They are used by manufacturers to spice up their model ranges. Extra aggression, added luxury, image enhancing. But automak
ers forget the lesson, "Everything in moderation." And it appears that automakers as a whole, simply represented here by Jaguar; Subaru; Ford; and Hyundai - are losing the plot. When reading about car design and car designers the last number of years, words like minamilism, clean, untouched keep popping up. Phrases like, let the lines carry the design.
Put another way: there's no need for extras on every part of the body to convince people the 
car looks good. Here's a few examples of the trend. Remember, these cars are simply representative of a growing theme. They happen to be cars I am somewhat fond of.
Jaguar's 'gorgeous' new XK coupe and convertible are indeed handsome cats. Interestingly enough, upon the debut of the new XK, chief designer Ian Callum said that the XK really shouldn't be chosen with the wood interior finish. The aluminum was a far better choice. Wood may have its place. Aston Martin makes good use of it inside the DB9. The Chevrolet Corvette a
ctually balsa wood in the floor where you can't see. However, you're stretching the idea when you consider that competing cars include ultra-modern cars like the Porsche 911, BMW 6-series, and Maserati GranTurismo. If the public already thinks you're stuck in the past, Jag.... offer aluminum only.(Click the pictures for a larger view)
Subaru h
as long traded in the rally-car-for-the-road feel of the Subaru Impreza. Over the last short number of years the Impreza has gone through numerous styling changes. There has been one constant: the large rear wing. Most every STi features some appendage you could lay out and sunbathe on. Rarely would you see a WRX without a similarly broad, but much more discreet wing. To pull off the WRC look, one needs an F15 landing deck. Understandable. But when people ask the VW dealer to equip their Jetta likewise - please. The latest Civic sedan has such clean and eye-catching lines. Please resist. Some do not.
Go-faster stripes don't work. There is an unproved theory that go-faster stripes are actually go-slower stripes. That heavy extra coat of paint or hefty layer of stickers can't assist acceleration times, can it? I dare say it may not. Stripes and all other such ext
ra paint applications do a fair job at making a modern F1 car look like a modern F1 car. Ugly, that is. (I'm trying to continue with the 'moderation' theme, but I'm struggling to discover the proper application of the dreaded stripes.) Regardless, somewhere out there - on Ford GT's and Shelby Mustangs for two - stripes belong. On the performance version of Ford's own Fiesta? No thanks.
A car does not p
ossess big wheels without also ascertaining big tires. A larger diameter in your wheel/tire combo will have the effect of maximizing your contact patch with the road. A tire of the same width will have greater contact with the road if the diameter of the tire grows. Typically, though, as diameter goes so goes width. Added width increases this effect. As diameters increase, so must the profile of the tire decrease. The profile of the tire is the width of the actual band you see between wheel and fender. As the profile decreases, so your contact patch increases. Increasing contact patch increases the grip your tire has on the road, thereby aiding handling.
This simple scie
nce has given rappers; tuners; Hummer drivers who never go off-road; and even the typical consumer the impression that big wheels are a must. Plus they look good. Problem #1 is added weight vs. acceleration. Upsizing two inches on a Civic-sized car will inevitably deteriorate your drag strip times. Problem #2 is added weight vs. handling. The weight you're adding happens to be added right where you don't want extra mass. Your dubs are as unsprung as your sixteen's, and therefore producing exaggerated impacts and dull turn-in. However, they do look good. They draw the eye. And big wheels can be done tastefully, even on a tiny car like this Hyundai Accent.
Priced a handsome $40,000 less than its stablemate, the Range Rover, Land Rover's LR3 impresses right off with it's heritage. This is the maker that brought the Defender and the aforementioned Range to market; not to mention the Discovery, which has been superseded by the LR3. A heritage of what, you ask? Off-roading, my friend. No silly soft-roaders these, not cute-utes, not simply made for climbing a curb in the urban jungle, but to take you and your's through the Sahara and down the shores of the Amazon. Since it's a Land Rover, you can count on at least some measure of tough-terrain alacrity. And with the LR3, Land Rover has made a vehicle with off-road skills and limits far greater than the skills you will drive it with and limits you will drive it to.
But what's this? A Landie that copes with a twisting road? It can't be. Well, the Range Rover and Freelander started the trend, the LR3 continues it, and the Range Rover Sport takes it to a whole 'nuther level. Not an out-and-out sporty SUV a la Infiniti FX, BMW X5, and Porsche Cayenne, but simply capable on road, something that was not frequently said of the previous Discovery, with its odd wheelbase/track width/height proportions. I was surprised at how little body roll there was in the LR3, but far more impressed with the high-speed stability. It's easy to think you're putting along, when you're actually flying.
This Land Rover has good on-road manners, the hefty weight is felt; but controlled and managed. I wouldn't really need a whole lot more power, a request for more but not a demand. The LR3 is not slow. The 4.4L works smoothly and somewhat quietly. There's a good firm brake pedal and weighty steering that is naturally not feelsome. Moving inside, you'll feel quality switches, like the control stalks and rubberized volume button. The only interior part that doesn't support this claim is the shifter gate, which is nonetheless modern. Even the blinker noise sounds exactly as you would expect in a Land Rover.
They've thought of everything, much of which I don't have room to tell you, suffice to say that the key fob can survive under water, the two-peice tailgate curves to allow you to reach in, and well.... every piece of metal and plastic was first considered, then produced.
Perhaps the niftiest feature in the LR3 is the Terrain Response system . Select your mode of driving from five options: on-road, snow, mud, sand or rocks, and the TR will calibrate the differentials, throttle mapping, and any other electronic doo-dad to the optimal setting. Land Rover has done extensive testing so that the thresholds for each setting will keep you safe and secure. Even if you don't do any serious rock-crawling, Land Rover has still set up the vehicle to be the safest and most capable it can be when you select your type of road. And it's easy; just turn the knob, no computers to sort through at all. That being the case, the only thing I adjusted in my light-duty off-roading was the adjustable ride height feature of the air suspension, which allowed me more leeway when traversing a particularly large dip near the indoor soccer field on the Mainland Commons.
I've heard it said that the LR3 doesn't offer the upscale luxury ambience the Range Rover does. Considering the price gap, I wonder what people expect. The cheaper brother does well. There are two fixed glass roof sections for the rearmost rows, and a normal sunroof for those in the front. Seating is stadium style as you move to the rear, allowing both the second row and third a better view. Optionally, a navigation system allows you to find your way back off-road when there are no maps by leaving Hansel and Grettle-like droppings along your route. (Land Rover calls them waypoints.) A stereo system by harmon kardon is specially tuned to the acoustics in the Land Rover. From 9 to 13 speakers, 240 to 550 watts, a 6-CD changer and input capability for your iPod, this is indeed specially tuned. Naturally there's power everything and lots of leather, and if you're used to a Discovery, you'll like the space in the LR3.
In the end, how do I characterize the LR3? (See important link here)Well, it's far more than an off-roader, and with its boxy industrial look it carries on well from the Disco, with a 300 bhp V8 it moves along alright, and it handles pretty much any road you throw at it with poise. But whereas the Discovery, often due to faults, had such character; and where the Range Rover has such character because of its position atop the SUV elite, the Land Rover LR3 stands out for another reason. Yes, it is a Land Rover through and through, but it is the all around competence that characterizes the vehicle and thus wins me over. (I SAID, see important link here)
y selling faster than the factories can build them. Overall, General Motors were 21.3% lower in June of 2007 when compared with June of 2006.
