Is the new Saturn Vue Good Enough to Beat the Japanese Competition?

Every time you turn on the news there seems to be more bad news for the American auto industry. GM is the biggest of the American auto companies and while they're strong in Europe, they simply have too many companies here. Saab and Hummer need to be the first to go. Hummer only supplies overpriced, outdated, ugly gas-guzzlers and all Saab's cars are overpriced and outdated. The next of GM's companies to go will probably be GMC and Saturn. Both companies' lineup consists of re badged Chevy's and Pontiac's. 

Saturn's two unique cars are the Astra and Vue. The Astra is a very good car, but hasn't done well here. The new Saturn Vue however is a different story. The new Vue has sold fairly well. Over Christmas we rented a Saturn Vue XR AWD with a 252hp 3.6L V6. Our Vue had 29,000 miles on it and being a rental car, it was of course in worse condition than an average family car with 30,000. 

One of the things Saturn wanted from the Vue was a "European feel". That's term that's tossed around a lot, but the American car companies are very concerned about achieving. The reason for that is cars like the Buick Century (Or any Buick made since the 1980's), Cadillac Seville, Cadillac Deville, or something like the Ford Taurus all were terrible to drive. They had floaty ride quality and steering that did nothing to decide what direction the car went. The sales of those cars got worse as the European cars gained in popularity. So when GM was making the Vue they wanted the comfortable, but yet firm and responsive ride and steering that European cars have mastered. Overall the Vue is good at those. The ride certainly isn't soft, in fact it's almost too firm at times, but no where near as bad as the BMW X3, which feels like BMW simply forget to put a suspension in. The steering is responsive, but a little light. 

The front of the Vue is a nice place to be. The seats are extremely comfortable once you get them into the right position. Quality was usually a problem with Saturn's, but the Vue feels well made, despite the dashboard looking rather flimsy. The rental we drove did have 29,000 miles on it though and that's rental miles, so the car had held up well. Old Saturn's were made of plastic, which was cheap to make and repair, but was a big safety problem and forced all the cars to be boring looking boxes. With the new Vue the metal body allowed lots of curves and creases that make for a very good looking car. The metal also allowed it to be a Top Safety Pick in the IIHS crash tests. 

So far the Vue sounds pretty good, but it has a few huge problems. The biggest it weight, it practically ruins this car. The Vue weighs 4300 pounds, which means even the 252hp 3.6L V6 delivers underwhelming performance, 0-60 mph is nearly 8 seconds and with the smaller V6 and four cylinder versions it takes longer than almost any other small SUV. Fuel economy is another area ruined by weight, as well as the handling. The Vue's exterior dimensions are larger than the Honda CR-V, Hyundai Santa Fe, Subaru Forester and Toyota RAV4, but the cargo area is much smaller. The back seat is also too small and too hard. The Vue is also about $2,000 to expensive, but GM never sells a car for its list price, so that can be fixed easily.

I really wanted to like the Vue and give it a good review, but I was a bit disappointed. The Vue is a very good car, but compared to the Honda CR-V, Hyundai Santa Fe, Nissan Rogue, Subaru Forester, or Toyota RAV4 it simply isn't good enough. It does however beat the Volkswagen Tiguan and Mitsubishi Outlander. There is a new Chevy Equinox coming out soon that's based off the Vue, so maybe that will work better.

My Least Favorite Car of all Time

On BBC's Top Gear Richard Hammond, one of the show presenters used a jet powered drag racing car to burn a 1980's Nissan Sunny (sold as the Sentra here). The Sunny was his least favorite car 0f all time, because it was a soulless collection of metal made only to bring in money for Nissan. They also said that the reason their least favorite car wasn't a terrible British Leyland car like the Morris Marina or Austin Allegro is that the awfulness of those cars give them an almost human like quality or personality of some sort. 

My least favorite car of all time is the Cadillac Cimarron. I think this car represents everything that was wrong with the American Auto industry in the 1980's and 1990's. It also represents one of the reasons GM is in such huge trouble now.

The Cimarron is the result of platform sharing, something that works now, but in the early 1980's when the U.S. car companies started using it created some terrible cars. The Ford Pinto and Mustang 2 were both the result of platform sharing and the Pinto as many people know exploded if it was rear ended. The Cimarron was just a Chevy Cavalier with some disgusting shiny plastic glued to it. I can't think of a more disgusting car. Some of them were even in vomit yellow with a fake gold grille on the front. At first Cadillac called it the Cimarron by Cadillac, which just emphasized how it was just a Cavalier with some tacky "premium" features added to it. This car was sold for 6 years and in that time pretty much destroyed the Cadillac name. 

Platform sharing did at least have some good results, the Chrysler K-Car was an awful car, but the Chrysler Town & Country/ Dodge Caravan did come from the K-Car and those saved Chrysler. Some companies like Volkswagen have made good cars from platform sharing ever since 1974 when they brought out the Scirocco. Volkswagen have always taken parts from more than one platform to create cars like the Scirocco and later the Corrado, that's why they're so much better. The problem with platform sharing for GM was that they made so many cars that were identical, Take the Chevy Venture/Pontiac Montana/Oldsmobile Silhouette as an example, every one of the had the same disastrous safety, quality, and engines.

The Cimarron is a car that really had no good points. It was a truly small car, there is no space inside, but despite that gas mileage is still wasn't good. The EPA ratings for the 2.8L V6 version are 17 city and 25 highway, worse than a new Corvette with a 430hp 6.2L V8. The Cimarron being based off a Cavalier is so terrible to drive that I would recommend it as a new form of torture for the government to use, it would be viewed as more humane than water boarding, but just as effective. The original price was $13,000, or about $30,000 in today's money, but in 1988 it was nearly $17,000, more than a Saab 900 cost in 1988. Safety was another problem, the Cavalier always got terrible crash test ratings even in 2005 when it was replaced, so crashing one of these was guaranteed death, so it's a good thing they were slow. The most outrageous thing is the used values of these. I found two of them on Autotrader for $15,000. I can't think of any reason somebody would spend $15,000 on a 22 year old Cimarron. The Cimarron is a car that I truly hate. I can't imagine why anybody would decide to buy one of these, let anlone decide to build this car. For lots of reasons the Cadillac Cimarron is the worst car of all time. 

Al Gore Says We Need To Save Our Planet, Here's How

Al Gore has done lots of things in his life, he's been Vice-President, lost in a Presidential election, and now he lectures people on how we're murdering our planet. He was on Oprah recently giving another version of his big lecture from his movie An Inconvenient Truth. He always likes to use charts and statistics, but I have a problem with that. Statistics can be used to prove anything, so I could probably use those to argue that this climate change is being caused by people having to many goldfish or something. He talks about towns in Alaska that are going to fall into the middle of the Baring Sea, of course you feel bad for the people who will lose their homes if this happens. I can't help but think that the people who started those towns should have realised that weather conditions would be terrible on these stormy little islands. It's the same thing with New Orleans, I felt bad for all these people losing their homes, but I can't imagine somebody thinking it was a good idea to make a huge city in a coastal area that's below sea level and on one of the most hurricane-prone bodies of water in the world. Mr. Gore blames industry and machines like cars for this global warming. Mr. Gore also says its important not to be frightened by this, but when he shows you Greenland melting and flooding New York City I find it hard not to be frightened. I think Mr. Gore should talk more about what we can do and now that everybody knows there's a problem he should do something to help clean up the Earth. In Mr. Gore's movie he flies pretty much alone in his very polluting private jet and drives a 6,000 pound, 5.4L V8 powered, Lincoln Navigator. Mr. Gore also has large houses that all use up more energy in a year than several average American families would use. I have nothing against what Mr. Gore says, but I wish he would practice what he preaches a little more.

There are some cars that we can buy to do our part for the environment. The first car most people think of is the Toyota Prius, but I really don't recommend it. The Prius has very high EPA gas mileage ratings, but if you want to get that mileage you have to drive slowly and carefully, which is boring and isn't the point of driving. I've never driven a Prius (I have been a passenger in one), because of a fear I'd fall asleep from boredom, although the ride is so bad that you'd be woken up by a small pebble in the road, and when you crash it cooks you with very very hot battery acid. There is a Touring version of the Prius with real car tyres, but if you really want a hybrid the new Honda Insight is coming soon. Personally I would get a Volkswagen Jetta TDI, because it gets great gas mileage and is great to drive. There are some electric cars, but most of them are extremely slow, unreasonably expensive, and deadly. The only one I like is the Tesla, but it has some huge drawbacks as well. The first is its cost, $110,000. Also, I don't really like the idea of a larger, much more expensive Lotus Elise that makes no noise. I'd just get a Lotus Elise and save the environment (it can easily get 30 mpg) while I drive one of the most fun cars in the world. The only alternative fuel cars I really think might work are hydrogen powered, but we can't get those now.  Solar is another of these alternative energy car idea, but it really isn't well suited to something that moves or needs sudden busts of power.  Oh did I mention that they explode catastrophically in a crash. 

I recommend that people get an efficient car they like and wait for hydrogen cars to become available if they really want to help the environment. I would rather get something fast and fun to drive that can easily beat its EPA ratings, the Audi A8, VW Jetta TDI, or BMW 335d. Oh, just in case I'm on to something with my goldfish theory I got rid of my goldfish a couple years ago.

Car Thoughts Car Of The Year Awards 2008

Every Year Motor Trend magazine chooses their car, truck, and SUV of the year and so do all the other car magazines, but I prefer Motor Trend's format. So I decided to use it, but in a little different way. It works more like Formula 1 qualifying. Here's how it works.

Q1: These are all mediocre. Most are good, but need improvement.

Q2: Good cars that do well, but lose to the competition.

Q3: These cars are almost winners, but were edged out by the competition.

Podium: These are the top 3 cars.

Winner: The best of these new 2009 cars.

Q1

Volkswagen Routan: This rebadged Chrysler Town & Country/Dodge Grand Caravan could have worked, but it's let down by two things. First, it costs more than its almost identical American variants and the Honda Odyssey. Second it has no significant differences from the Chrysler. Therefore the only reason to buy this American minivan disguised as a German is to be different, but it's not worth it.

Mini Clubman: This is really just a silly and pointless design exercise as far as I'm concerned. It claims to have more space, but the back seat is still only for small children, you lose the low cargo floor of the Cooper, and the twin rear doors are unintuitive. The Clubman's only real good points are gas mileage, handling, and performance in the Clubman S.

Dodge Journey: This midsize crossover delivers on some of its promises. It's full of little storage cubbies and practical features, it also isn't boring like a minivan, but doesn't give up minivan practicality. The Journey is let down by poor quality and it isn't very good to drive. This is a good idea in need of improvement.

Smart Fortwo: This microcar promises great gas mileage, the ability to park anywhere, and safety. It is safe and can park in tiny spots, but not as much as the original Fortwo. The Gas mileage also isn't as good as it needs to be to sell well, but the biggest problem is how slow the car is. It's good, but isn't impressive or good enough to do well here.

Lexus IS-F: This performance Lexus targets the BMW M3, but it misses the mark. The Lexus has an 8-speed automatic transmission, which makes it heavier and slower than the 7-speed dual clutch M3. The Lexus has too many parts that let it down, the engine also isn't as good as the M3's. Lexus gave this car too many parts from the LS instead of the performance parts it needed.

Lincoln MKS: This big Lincoln is based off the new Ford Taurus, but has an improved rear suspension and a slightly larger V6. It has lots of new technology in a smart, easy to use package. This Lincoln is a very good car, but with more power and a sportier suspension setup would go a long way to making this car better.

Q2

Acura TSX: This is Acura's new small sport sedan, it has a 205hp 2.4L I4 and front wheel drive. The old TSX was a fun and comfortable premium sedan, and the new one is that, but with lots of new technology. The problem here is that they've made an interesting, fun car slightly

boring against its competition and it's slower too.

Dodge Challenger: This new retro muscle car, especially the 425hp SRT-8 manages to combine modern performance and classic looks. The SRT-8 is extremely fast and has good handling, but the quality needs to be improved. The only reason this car didn't do better is the upcoming Chevy Comaro which will have better performance and handling.

Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG: This 451hp 6.2L V8 variant of the great looking new C-class is Mercedes' answer to the new M3. It's bigger and heavier than the M3, but with an extra 31hp it's almost as fast, but it isn't as good of a performance car as the BMW. The C63 is a good value and nicer than the M3, but not as complete a car.

Honda Fit: This new subcompact Honda is larger than the first Fit, but it hasn't lost the original car's fun, but frugal appeal. The new Fit is larger and more powerful, but it still gets better gas mileage than the old one. This new Fit is the best mainstream subcompact car, the only problem I can think of is that prices are up.

BMW 1-Series: BMW's 1-Series Coupe goes back to some of the 1970's BMW 2002 recipe, a small, fast 4 seat coupe. The 135i however is much more like the E46 M3 in performance and size. The 135i is fast and fun, but the 335i is this car's biggest problem, the 335i is more practical and not much more expensive.

Volkswagen CC: For 2009 the Volkswagen Passat is getting a "four-door coupe" body, new styling, and a four seat interior. The new design is good looking, but impractical and expensive. The Passat's strengths like handling and acceleration are still there, but it cost much more.

Q3

Nissan Maxima: Nissan is trying to return to the original four door sports car, but this time they're using the four door coupe styling and handsome interior for that. The 290hp V6 provides plenty of power and refinement. The new Maxima is a very good premium sport sedan, that should do well.

Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen/TDI: This summer gas prices rose to over $4.00 a gallon and I have said that diesel is the best solution currently available, so Volkswagen's new Jetta TDI gets great gas mileage and in Sportwagen form is also very practical. The only drawbacks are it costs $24,000 and we can't get the 170hp version of the 2.0L I4 that we get 140hp from.

Hyundai Genesis: Hyundai is attempting to make a luxury sedan for 2009. They have all the right parts, a sound system from the Rolls-Royce Phantom, a 375hp 4.6L V8, and a very nicely finished interior. As you'd expect from a Hyundai it's an amazing value, at over $20,000 less than the Lexus LS460. It isn't exciting like a BMW, but the LS460 is even more boring in many ways. This Hyundai is a very good car.

Mazda 6: This new Mazda 6 brings a more interesting option to a market dominated by the dreary Toyota Camry. The new 170hp 2.5L 4-cylinder and 272hp 3.7L V6 are both powerful and refined, unlike the old car's engines. The handling is also a huge improvement, making this car just as good, if not better than the class leading Honda Accord.

Cadillac CTS-V: For 2009 Cadillac has a new CTS-V with an unbelievable 556hp from a supercharged 6.2L V8 shared with the Corvette ZR1. This car is priced near the BMW M3, but competes with the M5. I personally think this is much better than the M5, it has more power, a much less confusing, but still better technology control system than the i-Drive, and the CTS it started as is better than the 5-Series the M5 started as.

BMW M3: This new BMW M3 is a complete engineering masterpiece, like the Nissan GT-R, but more manageable. It has some tough competition, but easily beats it, so well I would buy one over a BMW M5 any day. The M3 sedan is practical and comfortable enough to be a family car, but still fast enough to beat a lot of much more expensive cars.

Podium

Acura TL: It's taken 3 tries, but Honda has finally created the best midsized sport sedan you can buy today. The old TL's were great, but by moving away from the Honda Accord this new one is so much better. The SH-AWD and technology pack version makes Acura's more expensive RL just pointless. This is one of the most advanced and nice new cars.

Pontiac G8: This rebadged Holden Commodore was designed to target the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger, but it's so good it has beat the BMW 550i. This car has great handling, ride quality, and thanks to a 361hp 6.0L V8 is also very fast. For $35,000 you can have a fully loaded G8 GT, that as far as I'm concerned is a brilliant luxury sport sedan.

Jaguar XF: This new midsized luxury sedan from Jaguar has a 4.2L V8 with 300hp or 420 in Supercharged form. This car is the best car in its class by a long way. The only car that comes close to the XF is the Infiniti M45, but it needs more power, something the Jag has plenty of. The only thing that kept this car from winning was its base price of $50,000 and $62,000 for the Supercharged version.

Winner

Infiniti G37: I have always liked this Infiniti. It has always been larger, less expensive, and faster than the closest BMW 3-Series to it. Now with 328hp this car can be just about every car you will ever really need. It has a luxury car badge on the front, lot`s of comfort, and it's an amazing sport sedan. This car wasn't redesigned for 2009, but upgraded, a lot. It now has a 7-speed automatic transmission and you can have an all wheel drive version of the G37 Sport too. it really is brilliant.

What is the Best Fast Luxury Convertible?

People love the idea of driving a convertible on a beautiful sunny coastal road. Car commercials that want to give you the impression of the car being beautiful and graceful often have one of those scenes. The Mercedes-Benz SL seem like the perfect car for that too, it's comfortable, pretty, and very luxurious. Since the 1960's, when the second generation SL was introduced the SL was the perfect expensive luxury convertible. For 2009 there is a redesigned SL with some new engines. The SL550 has the same 5.5L V8 with 382hp as the 2007 and 2008 SL550 and the SL63 AMG has the new 6.2L V8 with 518hp. The SL600 and SL65 AMG have the same engine as the previous versions. At $135,000 the SL63 AMG now hugely expensive, so the SL550 is really the only one that matters. At $98,000 the SL550 has lots of competitors that offer more power and performance. So, the SL has to make up for its lack of performance with luxury and comfort. The SL550's closest competitor is the Cadillac XLR-V. The XLR-V costs the same as the SL550, has a retractable hardtop like the SL, but the Cadillac has a supercharged 4.4L V8 with 443hp. The SL isn't nearly as fast as the XLR-V, but it beats the Cadillac by a long way in quality and luxury. The SL has some 4 seat soft top competition as well, the Jaguar XKR Convertible and Mercedes' own CLK63 AMG Cabriolet . The Jaguar has a 420hp supercharged 4.2L V8, the Jag is also one of the best looking new cars, and it's as luxurious as the SL550. The CLK63 AMG Cabriolet has a 475hp 6.2L V8, so it's very fast, but these were only sold as a model 2008. Both of these soft tops have better performance than the SL550, but they both have boring interiors. For about $15,000 less than the SL550 the BMW 650i Convertible and Audi RS4 Cabriolet are available. The 650i is slower than the SL550, but it is very nice and the RS4 is very fast, but not exactly luxurious. The Mercedes-Benz SLK55 AMG is faster than the SL550, is more fun to drive, and almost as luxurious, so it can be a real threat to the SL550 for $30,000 less. The new BMW M3 Convertible is also $30,000 less than the SL550 and has 420hp, a retractable hardtop, and plenty of luxury, but the convertible M3 is a bit pointless, because it loses the stiffness of the coupe and therefore the brilliant handling. There are a few cars that look tempting compared with the SL550, but you should avoid them. The really big one is the Lexus SC430, it has the metal folding roof, a V8 engine, lots of luxury, and is $30,000 less than the SL550, but its 288hp engine, terrible chassis, terrible handling, and just being boring, make it's slow (for a $70,000 coupe/convertible), bland, and terrible to drive. The Porsche 911 is a brilliant car, but only as a coupe. The 911 Cabriolet is another tempting car, but as a convertible the whole point of a 911 (a focused, livable performance car) is lost. Taking the roof off a 911 is kind of like taking the arms off an athlete, it suddenly isn't any good at what it was intended to do. You would then be disappointed to find out that the cabriolet still has the rough ride and not very luxurious interior of a performance car. There is a 911 that might work here though, the Targa has a completely glass roof that opens over the entire interior of the car, so you get the open top convertible feeling without the wobbly roofless feeling a convertible originally designed as a coupe has. The SL550 is a very good car, but before you buy one it's worth looking at the Jaguar XKR Convertible for some extra style and performance, the Mercedes-Benz SLK55 AMG for some huge savings and better performance, and maybe even the Cadillac XLR-V for extra power and as something different, but at the sacrifice of the SL's feeling of being the $100,000 car it is.

Classic Cars, Beautiful, but Impractical. Is there a Solution?

Many people dream of owning one of the classic 1960 cars you occasionally see. Every time you see a Corvette Stingray C2, a 1960's Mustang, or sometimes an old Jaguar E-Type or Ferrari you remember how beautiful those cars are and how you've always dreamed of owing a car like that. There are however some problems with those sorts of cars that you don't notice. One is the cost of these cars, a good restored 60's Corvette will cost at least $60,000 and if you want one of the fast ones it can easily be 100,000. That isn't the only cost either, the fuel costs will be huge, as will the repairs. Classic cars are terribly unreliable, so most of the time they're only good for looking at, since they often won't start or work right if the do. Driving them isn't much fun either since the 1960's technology wasn't any good at making cars by today's standards. The classic cars we dream of now are terribly impractical for all sorts reasons, but there are some newer cars that aren't yet classics, but I think will be fairly soon. These cars can all be bought now for reasonable prices, they all have good performance, and they're all reliable. 

Along the lines of the old Corvettes, the 1990-1995 Corvette ZR1 is one example. The ZR1 had a Lotus designed 5.7L V8 with 405hp (originally 375hp, in 1992 it was upgraded) and a very modern active suspension system. This ZR1 was the first Corvette that was a proper sports car with good handling and it did 0-60 in 4.6 seconds on top of that. A good 405hp 1992 ZR1 Coupe with a manual transmission can be bought for $15,000-$25,000. The Acura NSX is another good example, it's fast, very reliable, and inexpensive. The NSX had a 270hp 3.0L V6, a mid -engine layout, and very modern suspension. The NSX is fast, very fun, and now you can get a very good early 1990's NSX is about $35,000 now. The 993 generation Porsche 911 is still rather expensive, but being the last of the air cooled 911's has a certain appeal as one of the sort of real 911's, not one of the new very good, but not quite original 911's. The 993's were the first 911's that didn't try to kill you every time it saw a turn. The 911 is a fast and fun 911, but unlike the older 964's is a manageable car. A good 1995 911 is $25,000(C2)-$60,000(C4S), but these are getting rare and 911 fanatics will appreciate the 993 as the last of the air-cooled 911. The Porsche 928 is another good future classic, it has everything a future classic needs. The 928 was a truly revolutionary car in 1978 and it doesn't really seem very outdated or old 30 years later. The 928 had parts and design elements that weren't common until the 1990's. Porsche stopped making the 928 in 1995, but it was just as advanced as the Toyota Supra it competed with in 95'. A good 316hp 928 S4 from the late 1980's or early 1990's is between $30,000-$35,000. All these cars and more of them I haven't included here are good sports cars that aren't impractical or extremely expensive. These cars also could of increase in value because of their age and appeal. Unlike the highly regarded classic cars of the 60's these are newer, nicer, good cars and won't break the bank. If you buy one of these possible future classic you could make some money off it after some time  and enjoy owning the car.

There Are Lots Of New Cars That Are Undiscovered Gems

The cars that are selling well right now are all crossovers, fuel efficient small cars, anything with a big lithium battery in the engine, and anything with a Toyota symbol on the front. There are lots of cars that don't sell so well, but are very good cars. The Audi A3 is basically a GTI with an Audi body on it, but there is a lot more than  that. It looks better than the VW, doesn't cost a lot more, and most importantly has the optional magnetic ride suspension. The A3, like the GTI is the Hot Hatch at its best, but the magnetic suspension means it's an Audi TT with a practical shape or a better handling, more practical GTI. Ford has some cars that don't sell well, but are good. The new Ford Taurus has a great 3.5L V6, a Volvo S80 chassis with four wheel independent suspension, it costs the same as a Toyota Camry, and is a Top Safety Pick. The Taurus SEL costs $23000, the same amount as a 4 Cylinder Camry XLE and the Taurus Limited is $28000, the same as a V6 Camry XLE. The Taurus looks better, drives better, is much safer, and much larger than the Camry, I know which one I would buy. The Lexus ES350 sells fairly well, but Hyundai has the Azera which is much better. A fully loaded Azera with 263hp, a navigation system, and more luxury features is $32000, $2000 less than the base price for an ES350. In 2004 Lexus brought out the RX330 (now RX350) and since then the only changes have been a pointless, overpriced hybrid version and a new 3.5L V6. Hyundai has the Veracruz which looks better, has higher safety ratings, two more seats, and a lot more features than the RX350. A fully loaded Veracruz Limited is $10000 less than a $48000 similarly equipped RX350. With gas prices going up Land Rover sales are going down quickly, but the LR2 is very good. The LR2 is built off the Volvo S80/V70/XC70 and has the same 3.2L I6 as those, meaning gas mileage isn't too bad. The LR2 drives well because of its chassis, but there are two similar cars I would rather buy. The Volvo XC70 is better, it has more space and an optional 281hp turbocharged T6 engine. The Subaru Outback is a station wagon and therefore doesn't sell well, but the Outback is completely brilliant. A fully loaded 2.5 XT Limited, the fastest version is $35000 and that gets you great some of the best build quality and reliability of any new car. One quality the Outback has is its great chassis, the Outback is built off the Subaru Legacy and unlike most crossovers has great handling. The Outback is every car most people will ever need. There are more of these undercovered gems of new cars, the Ford Explorer, Hyundai Santa Fe, and Nissan Pathfinder are some others. Just because a car doesn't sell well doesn't mean its bad, but you do have to be careful, all the left over Isuzu's don't sell at all because of their terribleness.

Acura Builds Great Cars, But Are They Exciting?

In 1986 Honda introduced the Acura brand in the North American markets. Their first cars were the Honda Civic based Integra and the Legend luxury sedan. Through the 1990's Acura brought out various front wheel drive sedans, the mid size Vigor and redesigned versions of the Legend. My favorite Acura was the mid engined NSX sports car. In 1990, when the NSX came out it had a 270hp 3.0L V6 and a brilliant chassis layout. The NSX is a car that despite being 18 years old still seems modern, especially the facelifted 2002-2005 versions with 290hp. The NSX was never as fast as the Ferrari 355 and Lotus Esprit, but handled as well as either of those. However, in the late 1990's some faults with the NSX's handling were uncovered. It turned out that at its limits the NSX's rear end would slide out and it could easily crash. That was fixed, but what makes the NSX great is the fact that anybody cared when the NSX was 9 years old, let alone when it was 15 years old. The NSX was designed to compete with the Ferrari 348, 964 Porsche 911, and the Lotus Esprit before the twin turbo V8 versions, cars that don't feel modern at all now. In 2005 there were still lots of NSX fans were devastated by the NSX being discontinued and Top Gear drove the NSX Type-R to encourage people to buy these great cars. Now you can get a 2003 or 2004 NSX for $50,000-$55,000, so if you want a $50,000 sports car you can choose a 245hp Porsche Cayman or a 290hp 2003 NSX. I think the NSX will someday be one of those classic cars people love like the Ferrari Dino. Acura had some cars that were big hits, the MDX sold well, the TL sells very well, and although it didn't sell terribly well the first generation TSX was a great car.

Acura's new cars are very different now than the plain designs they started with. The new TSX is again a rebadged version of the European Honda Accord. The new TSX is a good car, but the new one has a big problem, engines. The new car is much larger than the old one, but has the same engine, a 201hp 2.4L I-4 and it needs a V6 or the RDX's engine. Acura has a new TL for 2009, it's larger and looks completely different. It has a lot more lines in the bodywork than the current one and a rear end that is very weird. The engines are a 280+hp 3.5L V6 and a 300+hp 3.7L V6 on the AWD version. These TLs will be very good, all the TLs have been good. The Acura RL started out as a updated Legend and was boring, expensive, underpowered, and slow. The RL has a new front end and engine for 2009, the grille is like the MDX grille and the engine is a 300hp 3.7L V6. The RL has is full of technology, it has a navigation system that can tell you traffic levels and gives you names, ratings, and directions to restaurants. This car is boring, there is no excitement driving the RL. It's a good car, but there is something missing from it, so I would buy the Hyundai Genesis instead. The Acura RDX is a small luxury crossover that competes with the BMW X3. The RDX has a 240hp 2.3L I4 Turbo engine, that makes the RDX quick, 0-60 takes 6.5 seconds. The RDX has good car like handling and comfort, one thing the X3 doesn't have, but the X3 has more space. The new MDX is the best vehicle Acura makes, it has almost all the technology of the RL and the same engine, but with a version of Acura's SH-AWD that send more power to the rear wheels. The MDX handles well, is comfortable, fairly fast, has a good third row seat, a great second row seat, and plenty of space. It won a Car And Driver comparison against the BMW X5 and Mercedes M-Class. The MDX is by far the best SUV in its class. A fully loaded MDX is $47,000 and the least expensive version is $41,000, making the MDX the best value of mid size luxury SUV. Acura makes lots of good cars, but the RL is just too boring and making the sportiest luxury SUVs isn't good if you make luxury cars to compete with German sport sedans. The new TL and a turbocharged TSX might make Acura's cars as sporty as they should be.

The Hyundai Genesis Is A Great Value, But Is It Good Enough To Compete With Lexus?

Hyundai started as a small company making Ford Cortina's and in 1975 made the first Korean car, the Hyundai Pony. The Pony was designed and built by Hyundai, but had Mitsubishi power train. In 1988 Hyundai made its first car with their own chassis and most parts, the Sonata and in 1991 they made their first engine. In 1998 Hyundai merged with Kia and in 1999 they introduced the 10 year/100,000 mile warranty. Hyundai continued to extend its model lineup with the Santa Fe SUV and XG300/XG350 large sedans. In the last few years Hyundai has been making more quality products. The current Sonata is very well priced, safe, has better build quality than the Toyota Camry, has a great V6 engine, and drives as well as the Camry. The new Santa Fe is safe, roomy, good to drive, great value, and is even luxurious. The Hyundai Azera is a largish sedan that competes with cars like the Lexus ES350 and is better. Hyundai's mid size SUV, the Veracruz is a competitor to the Toyota Highlander and Honda Pilot, it's just as good as those. Hyundai aimed for the Lexus RX350 with the Veracruz and made a better vehicle than the Lexus. The Hyundai Entourage is another good Hyundai, it's safe, a great value, and the Entourage is beat only by the Honda Odyssey and maybe the Dodge Grand Caravan in the minivan class. Now Hyundai has made its first real luxury car, the Genesis.

The Genesis has everything a modern luxury sedan needs. It has rear wheel drive, available V8 engine, high tech navigation systems, and all the comfort features luxury car buyers can expect. The base price of the V6 Genesis is $32,250 and for that you get 290hp from a 3.8L V6, leather, and lots of luxury. For $39,250 you can have the full 17 speakers, one of the most advanced navigation systems of any car, and just about any luxury feature you might find in a Lexus. For $37,250 you can have a 375hp 4.6L V8 powered Genesis and for $41,250 you can have the technology package, which adds all the high tech features of a fully loaded V6 Genesis. The V8 Genesis is were the value lies. Compared with the $44,600 BMW 528i the closest equipped Genesis V6 is $32,250 over $12,000 less. The most similar new car to the Genesis V8 is the Lexus LS460, which at $63,000 is more than $21,000 more expensive than a similarly equipped Genesis. The closest car I can think of that you can buy to the Genesis is  a 3 or 4 year old Lexus LS430, one of the few cars that is better than its replacement. The Genesis has lots of newer technology that the LS430 misses out on because of being older, so I would still buy the Hyundai. The Cadillac STS V6 is $44,515, but with the likely discounts becomes the Genesis's main new competition,  but the STS happens to be a pretty much terrible car. That makes the Genesis by far the best luxury car value there is and while is isn't fun or exciting car to drive it is enjoyable. With the money you save over a Lexus LS460 you could easily buy a fun sports car, the Mini Cooper S, Mazda MX-5 Miata, or Volkswagen GTI for example. There is a coupe version that will have a more sport tuned suspension and will be much smaller than the sedan. Hyundai is really moving forward and I think will become one of the best car companies here.

Has BMW's Design Gone Wimpy With The New 7-Series?

The BMW 7-Series has always been a car that has a striking and recognisable. The first generation (E23) 7-Series was a clean and attractive looking car, but nothing else looked quite like it. The 7-Series also had many of BMW's signature design elements like the rear door kink, BMW's kidney grille, and the pointed shark nose. BMW have always been about performance not styling and performance is what separates every 7-Series from the Jaguar, Mercedes, and more recently Lexus. The second generation (E32) of the 7-Series was larger, added the long wheel base, V8, and V12 engine options. The second generation 7-Series had all sorts of unique options including a telephone, fax machine, a wine cooler, stability control, and windshield wipers designed for the Autobahn. The E32 7-Series was also the first car to have BMW's 155 mph governor, but BMW still claimed a 750iL could go 186 mph without the governor. The third generation (E38) 7-Series (my favorite 7-Series) was a great balance of classic BMW and modern(-ish, it came out in 1995) styling. The E38 had a wonderful chassis and a great suspension setup. To drive the E38 feels extremely solid, handles impressively, and still manages to be comfortable and luxurious. That car had some drawbacks, the basic sat nav was useless and it had flimsy cup holders, but when you pull out to pass on a two lane road and the 740i's 4.4L V8 slams you into your seat with its 325lb.ft. of torque (more than a Toyota Land Cruiser's 4.7L V8) none of than matters. On a highway road trip the 740i could average 30 mpg despite the EPA rating of 22 mpg. The E38 BMW 740i was pretty much every car you could ever need. Now you can find buy a 2001 740i in great shape for under $18,000, but the most of them are the gas guzzler Sport version or the huge 740iL. There are even bullet proof and bomb proof versions for available used for under $27,000, since when would a Toyota Camry protect you from a bullet. In 2002 BMW brought out the E65 7-Series which had the extremely odd Cris Bangle design and the "Bangle Butt". The fourth generation 7-Series had grown in length and especially in width and height. The worst feature of  the E65 7-Series is the iDrive, which is so unintuitive to use that a BMW salesperson I talked to couldn't use the iDrive even after 5 years of selling them. The iDrive caused huge reliability problems in most 2002-2004 E65's, because of faulty software. The iDrive problems could be disastrous, because the iDrive controls so much of the car. The E65 did at least drive well and sold well, but it really wasn't a good car. In 2006 BMW improved the E65 7-Series (it became the E66) with cleaned up styling, a new 360hp 4.8L V8, and a few changes to the iDrive.

For 2009 BMW is introducing a new fifth generation 7-Series and it should be much better. The old E65/E66 7-Series's Achilles heel was the iDrive system. The new one has a heavily revised iDrive that works more like Audi's extremely intuitive MMI. It has several buttons that access different functions of the iDrive system and a large button that you can point, spin, and click with. The gear change lever is now on the center console, not the steering column like before. The interior will be good, but the exterior styling isn't anywhere near as extreme as the E65/E66's. The exterior has been smoothed out a lot and gets a rear end just like the Lexus LS460. People have adjusted to the old car's styling and want something more extreme than this, it seems like BMW may have wimped out on the design. Hopefully BMW can redeem itself in performance. The engines are planned to be the 400+hp 4.4L twin turbo V8 (750i), a 320+hp version of the twin turbo 3.0L I6 from the 335i, and possibly a diesel or V12. The engines sound good, but BMW will need to work hard if the want to beat the Mercedes-Benz S550 on handling and driving pleasure, weight was a problem with the last one. This 7-Series needs to be great, but if the rest of the car is like the styling it won't be good enough.

Subaru's Are Great Cars, But They Get Overlooked

Subaru started out as an aircraft research lab called Nakajima Aircraft Company. Later they became Fuji Heavy Industries and in 1954 made the Subaru 1500 (also called the P1), their first car. In 1958 the Subaru 360 came out with 16hp and was only 117 inches long. Subaru made various mini cars though the 1960's and 1970's. Subaru entered the U.S. Market in 1987 with the Justy, the first production car to offer a CVT transmission. In 1989 Subaru brought out the Legacy. It was was the largest car they had ever made and the first one that had a chance in the large car dominated North American market. The Legacy had optional all wheel drive and a 2.2L Flat-4 with 130hp or a turbocharged Sport AWD version with 160hp. In 1993 Subaru introduced the Impreza, a small sedan with optional AWD. The engines started with a 110hp 1.8L Flat-4, and later a 142hp 2.2L Flat-4 and a 2.5 RS version with a 165hp 2.5L Flat-4. That car was made from 1993 until 2001. In 2001 a new Impreza came out with Subaru's 2.5L Flat-4 Boxer engine and standard AWD. It was also available in a Wagon body style and there was an Outback Sport version that had added ground clearance. That Impreza went through 3 design changes. The first design was simple, but a bit boring. The second one was similar, but looked better than before. The final design change was when Subaru went crazy and put the B9 Tribeca grille on the front, making the car uglier than either previous design. The Legacy was first redesigned in 1994 and the Outback version with higher ground clearance was introduced. It was Subaru's first properly good car, it was well built, safe, solid, and better to drive than the Honda, Toyota, or Nissan competition. The second redesign of the Legacy, brought out in 2000,  was even better, it was very solid, safe, and much nicer in every way, engines, luxury, the way it drives, and space. The best version of the that Legacy is the top of the line Outback H6 VDC, which had stability control, side airbags, leather seats, and more luxury features. In 1997 Subaru brought out the Forester, a small SUV that had a low ground clearance and was built off the Impreza and had Impreza engines. The first generation Forester was a solid and dependable vehicle. In 2003 Subaru redesigned the Forester and created a great car. It drive very well, was safe, and could do almost anything its owners would need it to do. The XT version was very fast, it was basically an Impreza WRX in a larger, more practical body. The Subaru Baja was another great idea that never caught on. It was an Outback with a small pickup truck bed on the back and could have a 210hp turbocharged Flat-4 engine.

The new Subaru's are better than they have ever been. The new Impreza is great, but unfortunately it has become too heavy and its performance leans more towards comfort than spotiness. The WRX however is is faster and nicer than any version before, but the WRX STI has taken soft and comfortable too far, it's the first time I like the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo more. Unlike the Impreza, the Legacy is extremely good. The Legacy is an IIHS Top Safety Pick, it has lots of space, but what makes it really great is how it manages to drive better than every it competes with and is still very comfortable. The build quality is world class and it will of course be extremely reliable since its a Subaru. The Outback is just as good as the Legacy, it loses some of the Legacy's handling because of weight. Instead you get lots of extra space and more ground clearance for snow and some off-roading. The new Subaru Forester has been completely redesigned for 2009 and it's now a very competitive vehicle. The Forester drives very well, is an IIHS Top Safety Pick like every new car Subaru makes, has a lot of space, and costs under $21,000. The turbocharged XT trim level is extremely good too, it's fast and drives very well. The Subaru Tribeca is the one Subaru that isn't a good car. It is far to impractical and is pointless compared with Subaru's own Outback and the competitors. Subaru's biggest problem is their image of cheap and undesirable cars that turns some people off. They are one of the best car companies in the world.

The Lincoln MKS is Good, but Confused

Ford is in a lot of trouble. Their cars aren't selling well and they're losing money. Their biggest problems are to be found in their other brands, Lincoln and especially Mercury. One important step would be to lose the Mercury brand like GM did with Oldsmobile. However, there are some problems with that: The Lincoln Mercury dealers. There are lots of them and it costs a lot of money to build and run them. They could switch the dealers to Lincoln only, but that isn't very cost efficient because Lincoln is a small brand. They could make servicing for all three brands, or at least Mercury, be at all Ford dealers because the cars are mechanically all the same. There is no way for them to turn Mercury around since everybody knows the cars are identical to the Fords. Ford can turn Lincoln around. Lincoln was the last word in American luxury 30 years ago, thought of as the American Mercedes-Benz or even Bentley. In the last fifteen years people who bought Lincolns and Cadillacs have switched to BMW and Mercedes. In the last ten years Lincoln has been making large SUV's like the Navigator and cushy sedans like the Town Car that only sell to limo drivers. They had a credible German luxury car competitor with the Jaguar S-Type based LS. The LS had almost everything they needed to compete: An independent rear suspension, rear wheel drive, a great V8 engine, and a reasonable price. It had two serious problems. It looked too dull and it didn't have the technology of the German competition. They now have the ford Fusion based MKZ. It's overpriced and doesn't have the features that would make it beat the Lexus ES350. Lincoln has the MKX, a Ford Edge with an AMC Eagle front end and a $40,000 price tag. The Navigator is the only vehicle that is actually good, but the Ford Expedition does the same job for a lot less money. For 2009 Lincoln has a new large "mid-luxury" sedan called the MKS. The Lincoln MKS is built off the new Ford Taurus (the Taurus is built off the old Volvo S80), but the MKS has a new multi link independent rear suspension (the Taurus has a different independent rear suspension). The MKS is front wheel drive normally or available in all wheel drive. The MKS has a 273hp 3.7L V6 from the Mazda 6 and it will get a twin turbocharger to make 340hp soon. The MKS has extremely comfortable seats and lots of space. Lincoln has done a great job of making lots of complicated technology like real time traffic and weather maps easy to operate. The MKS isn't terribly fast, 0-60 takes 7.9 seconds. It is at least nimble and enjoyable on twisty back roads and in the city it doesn't feel big and overwhelming like Lincoln used to. Where the MKS really shines is on the highway were it rides nicely, is very quiet, and will pamper you in a way that much more expensive luxury cars do. The reason I say the MKS is confused is that it has no clear competitors. It's 10 inches longer than the cars they should target like the Infiniti M35 at 200in. long, making it larger than the normal length large luxury sedans like the Lexus LS460. Its price is closer to that of smaller luxury sport sedans like the BMW 3-Series and Infiniti G37 (for 2009 the G35 sedan gets the 3.7L V6 from the G37 coupe). Some possible competition for the MKS is the top of the line Toyota Avalon Limited and Buick Lucerne Super. Both are the same size as the MKS, both are similarly luxurious to MKS despite the less equipped base models of both cars, and all three have similar power. The Hyundai Genesis is priced near the MKS, is the same size, has similar features and comfort. There are two huge differences with the Genesis and the MKS, the Genesis is rear drive and the Genesis has a 375hp 4.6L V8. Some other competitors are the Nissan Maxima, the Lexus ES350, and the Acura TL, but those compete with the MKZ. The Cadillac STS is a possible competitor, but it costs more. This is one car that Ford's strategy of under-cutting the competition's prices by making a car that isn't as good could work. That is only because it is still a good design that offers a much nicer car for the money than the money than the Germans. This is now Lincoln's best car.

Is the Updated Porsche 911 Better Than the Updated Aston Martin V8 Vantage?

For 2009 Porsche is introducing an updated 911 Carrera and Carrera S with direct injection engines among the improvements. Power is now 340hp up from 325hp on the Carrera and the Carrera S now has 375hp up from 355hp. One of the biggest changes is the 7 speed dual clutch "PDK" transmission that replaces the old 5 speed automatic. The new PDK transmission is like Volkswagen's DSG, which will soon be available as a 7 speed. Of the changes the most noticeable would be the new taillights, but the changes to the front bumper are much less noticeable. The extra power makes these cars much faster. With a PDK transmission the new Carrera S will do 0-60mph in under 4 seconds. The dual clutch transmission makes the 911 faster and more fuel efficient. These are very good improvements, but the 911 seems to have gone a little to technology crazy. The Aston Martin V8 Vantage has also undergone some extensive updates for 2009. The most important change is the new 4.7L V8 with 420hp. It's the same Jaguar derived engine as before, but it has been enlarged from 4.3L to 4.7L and an extra 40hp has come with the larger V8. That will fix the V8 Vantage's biggest problem, it felt like it had been made slower than it could be on purpose. Originally they didn't want to make the Vantage to be as fast as the 450hp V12 DB9, but the DB9 gets 470hp for 2009. Now the V8 Vantage has enough power to be the great car it should have been all along. The DB9's flappy paddle gearbox is also available (it was available on the V8 Vantage before the 2009 update), but unlike most flappy paddle gearboxes the Aston Martin one is really an automatic. That makes for smooth shifting in the city and none of the clunkyness of manual based flappy paddle gearboxes like the Ferrari transmission. With both of these cars the manual transmissions will provide a more satisfying driving experience and in the case of the Aston Martin it will be faster. The Porsche 911 has been a better to drive than the V8 Vantage ever since they both came out. The 911 handles better, is faster, a better value, is more reliable, gets better gas mileage, and is more practical. However the Aston Martin isn't bad in most of those areas (gas mileage is the only area were the 911 is significantly better. The Aston Martin looks absolutely stunning coupe and roadster form, but the 911 design is always the same as last one except for a few head and taillight changes. The V8 Vantage roadster is almost as stiff as the coupe unlike the 911 Cabriolet which looses much of the coupe's stiffness when the roof is gone. The practicality of the 911 is one of its important appealing features, but in an Aston Martin that just isn't very important. The Aston is carefully hand built, the craftsmanship is very important to Aston Martin, but the Porsche is built in a factory were efficiency is very important. The car to buy if you want to be sensible is the 911, but the car you buy with your heart has to be the Aston Martin.

When Will Volkswagen Give us the Scirocco?

In 1974 the Volkswagen Scirocco was brought out.  It was a compact coupe built off the Mk1 Golf that came out 2 years later.  The first Scirocco's attractive Guigiaro design was one of the main appeal of the car.  The Scirocco was very successful in the United States and Europe.  The second generation Scirocco was introduced in 1982 and used the same platform as the first Scirocco.  However, the second generation had a much more plain and boring design.  It didn't sell nearly as well.  The Scirocco's replacement, the Corrado, came out in 1988.  The Corrado platform was part MkII Golf and part Passat. It also had an attractive design and powerful engines like the 2.8L V6 (VR6) with 172hp.  Now there is a new Scirocco, but it won't come to North America.  Like the Corrado the new Scirocco's platform is part MkV Golf/Rabbit and part Passat.  The front suspension is from the MkV Golf/Rabbit and the rear suspension is a aluminum version of the Passat's rear suspension.  The main engine is the 197hp 2.0L I4 Turbo from the GTI, but there is a chance that the Passat's 280hp 3.6L V6 will become available.  The Scirocco does 0-60 MPH in 6 seconds flat with the 2.0T engine.  The Scirocco has a four seat interior layout similar to that of the Volvo C30, one of its main competitor.  The new Scirocco looks extremely good, some elements of the design are similar to the first generation Scirocco.  The Scirocco will drive much better than the C30 though, mostly because of its suspension.  In many ways the Scirocco is a more practical Audi TT for a lot less money.  It has the same magnetic suspension that allows the TT to be comfortable or sporty without any of the usual drawbacks like a rough ride or sloppy handling.  This is a truly great car, but Volkswagen won't send them here.  That is because of the weak Dollar and fear that it would take sales from the GTI.  In England they can sell a 2.0T Scirocco for 21,000 Pounds or over $41,000 and here the Scirocco would sell for under $25,000.

Will the 2009 Camaro be a Good Car

In 1967 Chevy introduced the Camaro muscle car as a competitor to the Ford Mustang. Like the Mustang the Camaro was a powerful, good looking, and inexpensive coupe, but the Camaro was overshadowed by the Mustang's success and appeal. The base model Camaro had a 3.8L I6 with 140hp and the engines went up to a 7.0L V8 that GM claimed had 430hp, but actually had closer to 550hp. In 1970 the second generation Camaro came out. It was larger and more successful than the first Camaro. Again the engines started with an inline six cylinder with around 150hp, but the most powerful engine was a 6.5L V8 with 375hp this time. The 1970's oil crisis caused GM to start putting less powerful engines in the Camaros like a 145hp 5.7L V8 and a 120hp 4.4L V8. It was really pathetic that a 4.4L V8 could have less power than a 3.8L I6 made 10 years earlier. The third generation Camaro was brought out in 1982 and started with a 2.5L I4 and a 2.8L V6 that had 112hp (in 1985 it was raised to 135hp). The other engines were 5.0L and 5.7L V8's with 190hp and 215hp. This car's best strengths were its looks and good handling for a 1980's American car. The fourth generation Camaro was introduced in 1993 with a 160hp 3.3L V6 and a 275hp (later 285hp) 5.7L V8. Later those engines got more power, 200hp for the V6 (the V6 was 3.8L by that point), 310-325hp for the 5.7L V8. That car was never very good though. It was ugly and the looks were no longer as tough or cool as previous Camaros. Its other problem was a seriously outdated design.  In the 35 years (1967-2002) they made the Camaro it always used the GM F-body chassis with very few changes.

The new 2009 Camaro seems like it will be by far the best Camaro ever. The new Camaro is a replacement for the Pontiac GTO (2004-2006), because of its Australian Holden Commodore based platform. That Commodore chassis is the best part of this new Camaro.  It's the same chassis that the Pontiac G8 has. The G8 GT has been compared to the BMW 550i and Automobile magazine says it has better handling than the BMW. The G8 GT also beat the Dodge Charger R/T in a Motor Trend comparison.  That means the G8 based Camaro should beat its main competition, the Dodge Charger based Dodge Challenger.  The new Camaro has the retro styling down as well.  I think it looks much better than both of its retro styled 60's muscle car remake competitors, the Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger.  In fact I think the Camaro has a good chance of being the best looking American car in a long time. The Mustang's two worst flaws are two of the Camaro's three best strengths.  Those are the Camaro's thoroughly modern independent rear suspension versus the Mustang's ancient rigid axle. The other weak area for the Mustang is engines, the V6 is gutless and the V8 should have 30-50 more horsepower. Chevy has great engines in the Camaro the 3.6L V6 has 304hp thanks to direct injection. The Mustang GT has a 4.6L V8 with less power than the 3.6L V6 and will get much worse gas mileage. For a V8 the Camaro has a 6.2L V8 with 400hp or 420hp and that V8 will manage good gas mileage for such a large, powerful engine (if you need proof the 2008 Corvette with the same engine is rated at 26mpg highway by the EPA). The Dodge Challenger is good in all those key areas, but the Camaro is better in all but interior space. Ford does have one way they could beat the Camaro. They need to make a Mustang with a FG Falcon platform and the efficient, but powerful 360hp 4.0L I6 turbo engine from the Falcon. They would need some more powerful V8s as well, but it would work. Until Ford makes a better Mustang the Camaro will be the best new muscle car. There is a Camaro convertible as well, but it doesn't look nearly as good as the Coupe.

When Will Ford Make a Good Mustang?

In 1964 the Ford Mustang was brought out and it was an immediate success. The Mustang looked good, was inexpensive, and was quite fast. The engines ranged from a 2.8L I6 with only 101hp to a 7.0L V8 with 375hp. The first one was built on the 1960's Falcon chassis and frame, most of the parts were just from other Ford vehicles of the 1960's. The first Mustang was great, but in the 1970's and 1980's they got larger, much uglier, slower, and overall worse. They even made a Mustang 2, based off the exploding Ford Pinto. In 1994 Ford brought out the fourth generation Mustang and it was really quite bad. They had terrible suspensions and awful handling. The engines the Mustang used also should have been more powerful considering their size. The fourth generation Mustang was updated in 1999, but still had most of the problems that the 1994 ones had. In 2005 the Fifth generation Mustang came out and sold quickly at first. That was because of its styling.  It looked a lot like the first generation, but still looked very modern. The new Mustang also followed the same recipe as the original, a cool muscle car at an affordable price. Those are the good attributes of the new Mustang, but it still has some major flaws. The platform they used was from the Lincoln LS, but the rear end was switched out to a rigid axle to save money. That pretty much ruined the car.  It would have been better to stick with the independent rear suspension from the LS. The Mustang's 4.0L V6 engine is also pulled right out of the Ford Explorer and only has 210hp. The Mustang isn't a very good car to drive because there is almost no feel in the steering and suspension. The V6 version isn't fast either.  It takes around 7 seconds to go 0-60 mph, but it feels like a long time. For a car the same size as a Hyundai Sonata the Mustang has very little space inside. I know that it's not intended to be large, but they could have easily made the interior area larger and allowed more space in the trunk and back seats. There are lots of problems with the Mustang, fuel economy and safety aren't good either, but newer Ford products are much better. The next Mustang should be built off the new Ford FG Falcon, but that is unlikely.  While Ford chooses to make only cosmetic changes to their vehicles instead of using their modern platforms with independent rear suspensions, their handling will suffer versus their peers. 

What is the Best 7 Seat Crossover

There are a lot of families who want a safe and roomy family vehicle that can fit 6 or 7 people. Many of them find a minivan, like the Honda Odyssey too boring and a big off-road SUV, like the Ford Explorer too truck like. That leaves crossover SUV's or car based SUV's, they all sit lower than off road SUV's, but still have a high driving position. They also drive more like cars than the off road SUV's and have more interesting looks than minivans. They have all wheel drive and are higher than most cars, so they're usually safer too. The first crossovers were just raised station wagons, the AMC Eagle was the first, Subaru came up with the Outback in the 1990's and there was also the Lexus RX300. Those all had 5 seats, but in 2001 the Acura MDX was brought out with 7 seats. Now there are lots of them, but they aren't all good. The Acura MDX is still one of the best, with 300hp and a great chassis, but it is expensive and doesn't have a lot of space. The new BMW X5 has 7 seats, but the third row is useless and there's less cargo space than a Honda CR-V. The Volvo XC90 was one of the first 7 seat crossovers and it was by far the best one when it was brought out, but now it's 5 years old and the competitors have passed it in space, comfort, and safety. The updated 2009 Honda Pilot drives well, has 8 seats, and a lot of cargo space for a 188 inch long SUV, but it's overpriced and the new competition is better even where the Pilot is good. The new Toyota Highlander is another very good crossover, it's a Top Safety Pick, it drives well, and is nicer than it's Lexus sister, the RX350. The problem with the Highlander is it has a third row that doesn't split fold, the hybrid is very overpriced and the hybrid still doesn't get much better gas mileage than the normal highlander. The Hyundai Veracruz is one of the best of these crossovers, it's a Top Safety Pick, drives well, and beat the Lexus RX350 in a Motor Trend comparison. The best crossover SUV for space are the Buick Enclave/GMC Acadia/Chevy Traverse/Saturn Outlook. Each one has its strengths, the Enclave looks the best and is the most luxurious, the Acadia has a useful modern design and is quite luxurious, the Outlook is the best value, but the Traverse has the most power, still has the 117 cubic foot cargo space, the large third row seat, and looks very good. The best overall crossover is the Mazda CX-9, it has a lot of cargo space, drives very well, is a good value, and has a roomy third row seat. The best value of these is the Suzuki XL-7, it has a large 97 cubic feet of cargo space, lots of family friendly features, and great safety all for under $27,000. This 7 seat crossover segment is very good, but the Chevy Traverse and Mazda CX-9 tie as the best ones overall, depending on what you need from a family crossover.

The European Car Companies Can't Afford to Sell Cars Here

Many of the European car companies are sending less of their cars to U.S. dealers because the U.S. dollar is worth so much less than the Euro. In Europe they can sell a car for a lot more money than they can here. A BMW 335i is $39,000 here, but in Germany it costs 41,500 Euros, or over $65,000. That makes it harder to get a car built in Europe right now.  Some companies are choosing to build factories here.  Volkswagen for example is about to build a new factory here. That will hopefully allow for more availability of cars like the new Jetta TDi, which our dealers are having trouble getting. The American Porsche dealers have a shortage of 911's and Porsche doesn't want to send 911's here from Germany. A 911 Carrera S in Germany would sell for around 100,000 Euros, or nearly $160,000, but here they sell around for $95,000. The dealer I was at this weekend is only going to get 4 or 5 2009 911's over the next 9 months. However, Porsche won't build a factory here. If the U.S. dollar doesn't improve versus the Euro all these companies will have to raise the prices of their cars in the US or there will continue to be fewer cars at the dealers. 

Will the Smart Car Sell Well in The U.S.?

Earlier this year Mercedes-Benz brought its Smart brand to the United States. The Smart car project was started by Swatch, the Swiss watch company. The Smart City-Coupe was brought out in 1997 and was quickly renamed the Smart Fortwo. Smart introduced a version of the Fortwo with the roof, doors, and all windows removed, called the Crossblade. The Crossblade was almost impossible to drive without a helmet, because you sit high and your head is very high, meaning that there is no wind protection. Smart made several electric versions of the Fortwo. Smart sold Brabus (a Mercedes tuning company) versions of the Fortwo with 74hp, so it was faster. In 2003 Smart added the Roadster and Roadster-Coupe to their line-up. It was built off the Fortwo's rear engine chassis, but had a larger, more powerful engine. The reason these cars are "Smart" is their structure. The Fortwo has a very small front end, so it can't have crumple zones, but instead has an extremely strong structure. That only got the Fortwo three stars in the EuroNCAP crash tests because it was too much force to do well. Smart brought out the Forfour based on a Mitsubishi supermini, it was quite good. The Problem was the Mitsubishi Colt it shared many components with cost less and the French companies have better Superminis. Smart was planned to come here a few years ago with the Forfour and the idea of the Formore SUV. In 2005 Smart came to Canada with the Fortwo and in cities like Toronto it was quite successful. Now the larger second generation Smart Fortwo is being sold here. The new car has a bigger engine, more safety features, and it is 8 inches longer. The new Fortwo has a 1.0L 3 cylinder engine (300-400cc. larger than the old car's) and has 71hp. The Smart Fortwo got 4 stars from EuroNCAP and got Good in the frontal and side crash tests and acceptable in the whiplash protection test from IIHS. The new Smart Fortwo is still rear engined and rear wheel drive, but unlike the old one it won't get Top Gear's worst handling car award. It drives much better, because its length and wheelbase are now a fair amount longer than the car's width. In Europe a new diesel Smart Fortwo that will get over 70mpg combined, but there are no plans for us to get it. We will have to put up with the 40mpg gasoline version, 40mpg is good, but not good enough that people will want to switch to a 2 seat microcar, the new Volkswagen Jetta TDi will get the same mileage. We also won't get the extremely fun to drive 97hp Brabus version. The prices are good at least, $11,590 for the Pure, $13,590 for the well equipped Passion, but $16,590 is too much for the Passion convertible. Still thought it is the least expensive new car with stability control. Smart had 30,000 people on the waiting list before the car came here. However, I don't think that they'll sell many more through the years, meaning Smarts risky situation it's in now most likely won't get better.

What is The BMW X6 Designed To Be

 BMW recently brought out the X6 and nobody really knew what they were trying to compete with. The car they made looked like the front two thirds of a X5 had been given a 6 series rear end. The design has four doors and most of the car ahead of the windshield from the X5, but with a low sloping rear end of a coupe. It almost like they took a Mercedes CLS style four door coupe and put it on the X5's SUV platform. The X6 competes with cars like the Infiniti FX, Mercedes ML, Porsche Cayenne and the Range Rover Sport, but that doesn't make sense because the BMW X5 competes with those cars too. The engines however are some of BMW's best. It gets the wonderful twin turbo 3.0L I6 with 300hp in the X6 xDrive35i and a 400hp twin turbo 4.4L V8 with an amazing 450lb.ft. of torque in the X6 xDrive50i. Those engines also aren't available on the X5, which is too bad, because those engines are both extremely good. The X6 is also very good to drive, but the X5 is almost as good and the 3-series is much better to drive. The X6 is built off the X5, but is lower and has been tweaked for more sportiness. That means that the X6 is very good to drive, but sport sedans are better. A big problem with the X6 is it only has 4 seats, like a coupe. That one feature means the competitors are better. The Porsche Cayenne might not be, it's ugly, it costs a lot, and doesn't drive as well as the Range Rover Sport. The Range Rover Sport isn't as good to drive as the X6, but is more practical, and is a real SUV, because of its off road ability. The Mercedes ML is just as good to drive as a X5 and therefore almost as good as a X6 to drive, but again is much more practical. The Infiniti FX is the X6's real competition, it's better. The FX drives better than the X6, costs less, has 5 seats, has more space than the X6's tiny cargo space, and has the same performance. The FX35 has 303hp from its 3.5L V6 which is the same as a X6 xDrive35i and the FX50 has a 390hp from its 5.0L V8. I know that the FX50 has 10hp less than the X6 xDrive50i, but is priced closer to the xDrive35i and it weighs less than the X6. The X5 is another competitor to the X6, the X5 4.8i is only $1000 more than a X6 xDrive35i, but has 55more horsepower, 5 or 7 seats, more cargo space, and is faster. I would just choose a BMW 335xi sedan or Infiniti M45X instead of a X6 though. They drive much, much better, cost less, are faster, and still have all wheel drive.

What Would a 55 MPH Speed Limit do for our Cars

The government is thinking about introducing a 55 MPH speed limit on all our interstates. They think this will save gas and of course it will, but only about a 2 percent increase in fuel economy. A 2 percent increase in gas mileage just doesn't justify being much later than you'd planned because you can't go fast enough. This wouldn't help with traffic congestion either, it would make an empty highway move at a sort of medium traffic or construction level. We had a 55 mph speed limit in the 1970's and 1980's, which explains why so many of the American cars from that time were completely terrible. That meant the American car companies could get away with making very bad cars, the Germans could never have made an Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme in 1978. The reason they could do this was that most owners would never drive faster than about 60 mph. German cars like the Mercedes-Benz E-Class and S-Class would never have used leaf springs from a pickup truck. Our cars then weren't as safe either, Mercedes had crumple zones in the 1950's, but American cars didn't get them until the 1970's. We don't want our cars to end up getting worse because the owners would never drive them fast enough to find their flaws. If you drive a 80's car like a Cadillac Brougham or Chevy Caprice on a highway at 70-80mph they will weave, drift out of their lane, and simply feel unsafe to go in, like it could crash randomly, because of their soft, almost useless steering and suspension. That is why people in Europe and especially on Top Gear make fun of American cars and when we build junk like that we deserve it. Now is a chance for us to prove to Europe that we can make good cars, but a 55 mph speed limit will do a lot to prevent that from happening.

GM Can't Afford to Keep Saab

In 1937 Saab began making airplanes and 12 years later brought out their first car, the 92. They weren't a big company in their early years, but they made lots of airplanes. In 1968 they merged with the Scania truck company, who now sell semi trucks in Europe. 1968 also brought the Saab 99 hatchback, which was made for 16 years. It was replaced by the Saab 900 hatchback and 90 coupe. The 90 and 900 were some of the most successful cars Saab made, because they had a good design, their impressive safety, and they drove quite well. Saab also made fast turbocharged versions of the 900 in the 1980's. In 1985 the Saab 9000 was introduced. It had a type four platform that was used in the Alfa Romeo 164, Fiat Croma, and Lancia Thema, the 9000 also had Saab's turbocharged 4 cylinder engine. GM bought 51% of Saab in 1990 and by 2000 owned the whole car company. The Saab 9000 was replaced by the 9-5 in 1997 and the 900 was replaced by a new 900 in 1994 (the 900 was renamed 9-3 and heavily updated for safety in 1998). The Saab 9-3 and 9-5 were based off the Opel Vectra B made from 1995 to 2002. The 9-3 and 9-5 were also the first car to get a maximum number of points in the EuroNCAP side crash test, thanks to their advanced head and torso combination airbags. The new Saab 9-3 was brought in 2003 and is built off the Opel Vectra C, which was brought out in 2002. The new 9-3 was one of the first cars to get a 5 star crash test rating from EuroNCAP and to be a IIHS double best pick. The 9-3 is still a Top Safety Pick for every version, even the convertible. The 9-3 Sportcombi was introduced in 2006 to replace the old hatchback 9-3. Saab made the 9-2X or Saabaru as it is better known, it was a more expensive Subaru Impreza WRX Wagon. The problem with Saab now is they can't make any completely new cars unless they make their own platform, which GM can't afford. The 2008 9-5 is still built off a 13 year old Opel Vectra platform and neither the old Vectra or 9-5 was ever a very good car, even in 1997 when they were new. GM has a replacement for the current Vectra called the Insignia and it is a very good looking car that should have a good chassis, but it would cost too much to much to make a new Saab 9-5 from it and the 9-5 still wouldn't be competitive. What GM keep trying to do is make 9-5's with more and more power, when they first introduced the 250hp Aero it had horrible under steer and now they have 260hp in every U.S. 9-5 so it's even worse. The 9-3 also doesn't have a very good chassis, it surely isn't competitive and also suffers from bad under steer, but at least the new XWD (Saab's AWD system) is an improvement. The 9-3 would be a good candidate for the Insignia platform, but cost could prevent that for making it into a 9-3. The only solution GM has is too sell Saab to a company that can fix Saab, the Japanese car companies would work or Renault, who have turned Nissan around would also be good.