|
About Me
Isn't this meadow soothing? Let's pave a road through it! I'm James Riswick and these are my random thoughts published daily. Recent Posts
Categories
Links
CarSpace Thoughts from the CurbCar Reviews, News and Random Thoughts from Edmunds.com Automotive Editor James Riswick Feb 11, 2009 - The Rant: I Heart Harley
I understand the need for Harley enthusiasts to look tough. How else do you explain all the leather, the metal, the skulls, the buxom blondes in tow wearing leather, metal and skulls. But why is it a good idea to put a giant metal crest on the armrest of the 2010 Ford F-150 Harley-Davidson edition? I know Harley riders are accustom to traveling in discomfort -- how else do you explain riding atop a hot engine with ear-spliting exhausts blaring and your arms positioned six inches above your head? Oh, and having bug splatter in your beard. But you've gotta figure that Mr. Harley Rider who buys this ultra lux pickup is nevertheless expecting some modicum of comfort. I guess not from his right elbow, though, because its going to be resting on Conan's shield. -James Riswick
Jan 22, 2009 - The Rant: BMW Number Names Mean Jack-Squat
Once upon a time you could tell a BMW or Mercedes' engine size by its name. People used to marvel when I'd tell them those alphanumeric (or just numeric) names weren't just four randomly assigned digits. The first letter/number indicates the Class/Series and the subsequent numbers indicate engine displacement. A C350 has a 3.5-liter V6 and a BMW 328i had a 2.8-liter inline-6 with fuel injection (hence the i even though all have had it for more than 20 years). While Mercedes has mostly stuck with this policy it began sticking with during the 1990s (although there's the rare 63 AMG's that have a 6.2-liter engine), BMW has thrown their naming convention into the dumpster. While there were plenty of infractions over time, by my estimation, things started to go down hill with the Z3. It introduced a 2.5-liter six-cylinder to replace the weedy original four-banger. It was called the Z3 2.3i to create a bigger number gap between the bigger 2.8i. The 2.3i changed its name to 2.5i when the bigger engine grew to 3.0 liters with a name to match. At the same time, the 545i actually featured a 4.4-liter V8, but like AMG, at least they were in the ballpark. But the full Chinua Achebe was reached with the introduction of the sweet turbocharged six-cylinder for the 3 Series. It was a twin-turbocharged 3.0-liter inline-six. The base engine was a naturally aspirated 3.0-liter inline-six. Neither are named 330i, though, which is given to a Europe-only 3 Series with a different 3.0-liter six. Instead, we got the 328i and 335i. And the 128i, 135i, 528i, 535i, etc. Inexplicably, the turbocharged X5s get the moniker xDrive35i even though the other 3.0-liters aren't offered here. I suppose having a 330i and a 330t could be confusing, but now we have the 335i and the diesel 335d. Are you crosseyed yet? And then there's the 2010 BMW 7 Series. The outgoing model was dubbed the 750i even though it had a 4.8-liter V8. The new car retains the 750i name, but now features a 4.4-liter twin-turbo V8. I can see why BMW wouldn't want the 7's number to go down from a marketing stand point, but it's still the final nail in BMW's naming coffin. They now mean absolutely nothing and it makes playing "Know Your BMW Engine Displacements" a real bitch. -James Riswick
Dec 30, 2008 - The Rant: My Fellow Canadians Are Out to Lunch
The number of Canadian automotive publications are few and far between. There are only a handful of magazines and Web sites, with a band of dedicated journalists who do their best without the resources we enjoy south of the border. Devoted newspaper sections are also of note, specifically the Toronto Star's monster weekly Wheels section. In its December 20 issue, the Star's collection of automotive freelancers each shared his or her best and worst vehicles of 2008 (or rather, the cars they drove in 2008). I don't use this space to bash other journalists, but this was just too much for me to bare. Among the "best": The Worst: In today's moment of irony, stay tuned for my own Best and Worst of 2008 tomorrow. Ex-pat Americans living in Canada, feel free to rip me a new one. -James Riswick
Dec 18, 2008 - The Rant: COMPACT Parking Spots Are Stupid
This picture was taken at the Beverly Connection mall parking garage in West Hollywood. Note how I have parked the GLK350 in this compact parking space. True, I probably could have parked a bit better, but there was really no point because I could see by all the other parked cars that the guy who would eventually park next to me would be equally crooked. This Legacy proved me right. See, this entire huge row of parking spots are labeled COMPACT. Not two or three spots in between a set of pillars. No, an entire huge row and there's multiple entire huge rows of COMPACT parking spots all over the Beverly Connection. And all over Los Angeles for that matter. This stupidity must end. For one, nobody pays attention to the COMPACT sign. If there's an open space and Becky is driving her Suburban, then damn it, that Suburban will fit. It doesn't matter if the guy next to her has to enter through his tailgate. Second, even if people did heed the COMPACT sign, where the hell are they supposed to park when 70 percent of the parking garage is labeled COMPACT? Did they really expect there to be a huge line of Minis and Fits in row B? Third, there aren't that many compact cars to go in COMPACT spots. Cars have gotten bigger and people (up until recently) are buying bigger cars. Finally, people are horrible parkers who don't care if they are crooked or if the other guy has to enter through his tailgate. And then they force me to park like crap to avoid entering through my tailgate. For the love of all that is automotively holy, remove one damn spot from that line of spaces and make them all regular. I guarantee that's all it would take. One car per row isn't going to ruin the parking garage's bottom line -- especially at the Beverly Connection, which is never remotely full any way. COMPACT spots are stupid ... although I suppose I like them better than valet. But that's an entirely different rant. -James Riswick
Dec 11, 2008 - The Rant: Eight is Not Enough From GM
So I was interested to read on Inside Line yesterday that GM is promising to cut eight as yet unspecified nameplates from its product portfolio by 2012. Wait a second, eight? Eight is not enough. Because I have nothing better to do apparently, I jotted down every single GM nameplate currently in production to see what will logically be on the chopping block. Let's take a look at what could be cut using GM's own bail-out plan as guidelines, plus a few things we already knew. We know the Chevy Trailblazer, GMC Envoy and Saab 9-7X will definitely be dying between now and 2012. That's 3. GM will almost certainly kill or sell Hummer, so bye bye H2 & H3. That's 5. We know the Solstice and Sky will be discontinued and not replaced. That's 7. There's been no Chevy Cruze Pontiac clone announced, so it's safe to assume that the G5 will die. That's 8. But wait, didn't GM also say Pontiac would become a niche brand? I doubt a niche brand would sell useless clone cars like the G6 and Torrent (not to mention both vehicles would be way past their expiration dates by 2012 any way). So wait, that's 10. But what about Saturn? If they kill any of those nameplates or the entire division, that's more to the list. Ditto Saab. Basically, it doesn't add up to eight cars even if you stick to GM's supposed plan for the future. And realistically, there should be more vehicles cut -- GM is still rife with badge engineering. I've already written that Chevrolet and Cadillac is all that's needed. A penny spent on a Buick Lucerne is a penny wasted on making the Impala better. If they could transform Saturn back into a youth-oriented, quirky company and maintain the unique dealer experience (sort of like Scion), then it could stick around. But that would require new product, which doesn't seem likely. Eight is not enough. Keep that axe swinging. -James Riswick
Dec 10, 2008 - The Rant: No Seatbelt Dinging in Murano and Edge
We're currently working on a crossover comparison test featuring the Nissan Murano, Ford Edge and Toyota Venza. While at the track yesterday, Magrath, Sadlier and I were in the Murano doing the usual chore of noting numbers, chatting, general testing assistance and since it was insanely windy yesterday, chasing down errant garbage barrels that were blowing around our test track (aka Cal Speedway's parking lot). There was also an errant Port-A-Potty I saved from taking out a Benz GLK. On one of those barrel runs, it dawned on me that the Murano wasn't dinging at me for not having my seatbelt on. This morning I discovered the Edge doesn't ding at you either. Praise be to them both. Now, I don't go around without my seatbelt on. In fact, I feel naked without it. However, we were in an open parking lot going at slow speeds, so a belt isn't in the least bit necessary. I'm sure there's a few real-world instances where no seat belt chime would be nice -- I'll let you think of them. Like so many cars, the Venza and the GLK on hand immediately start dinging and pinging at me like there was an incoming surface-to-air missile. Audis will ding at you when you're in park. In park, damn it, as in not moving at all. Seatbelts are lifesavers and you're an irresponsible idiot if you don't wear one. I'm OK with seatbelt laws. But please don't ding at me. -James Riswick
Dec 3, 2008 - The Rant: Congressman Riswick Rejects, Mocks Chrysler Plan
The Big 3 have released their lists of "reasons they need a boat load of money and what they plan on doing with it." I'm going to look at Chrysler's plan in regards to vehicle development. Here's the paragraph about that, broken up so I can make snarky comments: "Does Chrysler plan to build cars and trucks that consumers want to buy, and that support the country’s energy security and environmental goals? Our product plan features 24 major launches from 2009 through 2012. For the 2009 model year, 73 percent of our products will offer improved fuel economy compared to 2008 models." Here, 'cars and trucks that consumer want to buy' is apparently synonymous with 'fuel efficient.' Except it isn't. People would still choose to buy a Prius over a Dodge Caliber Hybrid because the former is a well-made good car and the latter is a penalty box. People aren't buying the Sebring because it isn't fuel efficient (it actually isn't), they aren't buying it because it's rubbish. Let us continue... "We plan on launching additional small, fuel-efficient vehicles." Well that's at least good to know. Perhaps a retro K car for the 21st Century? I can see it now: Dodge brings back Reliant! "ENVI is our breakthrough family of all-electric … and range - extended electric vehicles – similar to the one parked outside. Chrysler’s product plan includes the introduction of the Ram Hybrid and our first electric-drive vehicle in 2010 with three additional models by 2013." Are these real, production-ready electric drive vehicles, or a handful of $3 million prototypes leased out to Jamie Lee Curtis? This needs to be more concrete if I'm sitting on this congressional committee. I just don't buy it given all the hurdles associated with all-electric vehicles and the inherent shaddyness of Cerberus. And in relation to ENVI, note how they don't mention any plans for these electric cars. They just describe them briefly and say one is outside. That's nice. They could also mention unicorns, put a horn on a horse and tie it up to capitol hill. It doesn't make it real. Here's another beauty from Mr. Nardelli: "I receive a salary of $1 a year. I have no employment contract, no change of control agreement, no “golden parachute,” and receive no health care or life insurance benefits from the company." Really? Why exactly are you working there, then? I understand this PR business about a $1 salary and no golden parachute is good, but the rest is patently stupid. Sure he's a gazillionaire after his adventure with Home Depot, but what sort of motivation does this man have to do anything. Have they replaced his office furniture with bean bag chairs and milk cartons? After driving their cars and after reading the plan, I'm going to have to vote no on saving Chrysler. Congressman James Riswick
Dec 1, 2008 - The Rant: Not so Fast with Volvo
While I trumpeted the amputation of brands at General Motors and I trombone the complete execution of Chrysler, I don't think Ford should be so quick to jettison Volvo. Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin were basically pretty (and often times costly) baubles that didn't really do much for Ford's bread-and-butter vehicle line-up. I doubt Explorer got any R&D help from Land Rover, for instance. However, the Ford Taurus, Taurus X, Flex and Lincoln MKS are all based on a platform that dated back to the Volvo S80. That lineage almost certainly contributes to those vehicles' superb crash performance as well as their indestructable feel. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Volvo S40, V50, C70 and C30 are all based on the Mazda 3 and Euro Focus platforms. While selling off Volvo could still be a good idea for cash-strapped Ford, I don't think it's as clear cut as GM axing Saab, where not much comes back the other way from Trollhatten. It could end up being good for Volvo, however, depending on who buys it. If it's a Chinese company or Tata, I'd think they're in a lot of trouble. Personally, I'd like to see BMW buy Volvo. It would give BMW a front-wheel-drive company to coordinate Mini with and maybe even Volvo's talented band of interior designers named Sven could chip in to snazzy up Bimmer's boring cabins. Volvo's driving dynamics (especially in ride quality) would be dramatically improved as well. BMW would probably laugh at the suggestion (they probably learned their lesson with Rover) and I have no idea about the economics of it all, but from a car fan stand point, I think Volvo could become a lot better under BMW. I like Volvo a lot -- at least their interior style and their boxy predecessors -- I just don't like driving them. Who better to fix that than the Bavarian Motor Works? As for Ford, think wisely Blue Oval. -James Riswick
Nov 20, 2008 - The Rant: Are There Any Car Guys in Congress or the Media?
I am sick to death of hearing this argument from mass media journalists/pundits and members of Congress. "The Big Three have found themselves in this financial crisis because they failed to make fuel efficient cars, like hybrids, that people actually wanted to buy." Wrong. That may be an issue in the here and now, but the Big Three's problems started a long long time ago. It started when Americans started to realize that the Japanese and Germans were making better cars than the crap the American companies were expecting the American public to buy out of brand and national loyalty. Honda made an Accord while Chrysler made a Dodge Spirit. Toyota made the Corolla while Ford made the Tempo and GM made the Cavalier. Hell, go even further back and look at all the American crap from the '80s. I was in pre-school and I knew that stuff sucked. American automobile loyalty died because the people started to realize other companies were making better cars. I can see the change in my family alone. Sure, we're Canadians, but "domestic" brand loyalty ran just as fierce in the Toronto area, which is home to massive Ford and GM plants. Back in the '80s and early '90s, every extended family member (16 or 18) on both my mother and father's side owned an American car. Today, I can think of four who own American. That's where this mess began. That's the cause. Sure, producing a Chevy Prius 6 years ago would have been a good move, but they'd still be where they are now. While trucks buoyed them all in the late '90s and early '00s, the car offerings were left to further slip behind imports. New offerings from Ford and GM (not not not Chrysler) are indeed catching up or have caught up, but it may be too late in public perception. Now, back to the media and congress. Seriously, are there any car people out there who know anything about this topic? I keep hearing "they aren't making fuel efficient or safe cars people actually want to buy." Well, actually they are safe. And in fairness, Americans decided they wanted fuel efficiency two years ago. That's not enough time for an automaker to screech on the brakes and go down a different road. No, they're in trouble for past crimes that are finally catching up with them. I don't know how you fix that. Perhaps you give them the money and hope they've learned their lesson. Or perhaps you just let them die because they deserve it. I don't know, but I'm not in Congress. Given the level of car knowledge on display, though, perhaps I should be. -James Riswick
Nov 17, 2008 - The Rant: For GM, One Answer is Obvious
I don't pretend to understand the business side of the car business. I'm a writer mostly because my father's business talk when I was a kid made me go cross-eyed with confusion. I barely got a B- in high school macroeconomics. The stock market makes less sense to me than the popularity of "High School Musical." Having said that, I don't completely understand the myriad creeks of excrement General Motors presently finds itself paddling up with a rotted oar. But whether they end up in backruptsy or bailed out by the government, one answer is abundant to me: GM must cut brands immediately, and focus instead on Chevrolet and Cadillac. This is not a new idea, I admit, but Pontiac, Buick and GMC are all redundant brands. Almost every car they make has a Chevrolet twin (or at least kissing cousin), while any unique products would either not be missed, or could easily be transformed into Chevy products. There's no reason to buy a G6 instead of the superior Malibu, nor a G5 instead of the identical Cobalt. As much as we like the Enclave and Acadia, the Chevrolet Traverse satisfies the needs of most buyers in this segment and it could be pumped up with more equipment. The rumor of the next generation Escalade being a Lambda would satisfy the need for a luxury version. The Pontiac G8 is excellent, but its already sold as the Chevrolet Caprice/Lumina in the Middle East, so that would be an easy change-over. The biggest problem with cutting brands (as I see it) is the dealers and the many problems experienced by GM when Oldsmobile closed shop. But it still needs to be done, and the fact that so many Pontiac, Buick and GMC dealers are packaged together, the toll would be significantly less. Hummer also obviously needs to be jettisoned, and Saturn should probably die as well. The idea of it being the European-ish division was ultimately stupid (even though I initially thought it was cool) -- it's hard for people to think of Saturn as anything other than a weird and inexpensive car belonging to co-eds or senior citizens. If car development between GM USA and GM Europe is to be more closely shared (which like Ford, it must), it should be Chevy that sees the fruit of Opel's engineering efforts. GM is in critical condition and immediately needs multiple amputations. It doesn't take an economics major to see that maintaining brands because of traditions, dealers or simply to build cars to keep workers employed isn't a very sound business model. - James Riswick
|
