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.

GM Needs to Sell Hummer

In 1979 AM General began developing the Humvee for use by the U.S. Military, it would replace the small, outdated Jeeps. In 1992 AM General started selling these huge Military vehicles for around $30,000. In 1999 AM General sold the Hummer Brand to General Motors, but they were sold as AM General Hummers until 2002. The Hummer H1 was brought out in 2002 and was made until 2005. In 2006 for the final year of production GM made a $100,000+, 300hp H1 Alpha. GM quickly realized that H1 was too impractical and expensive to appeal to many people and in 2003 brought out the Hummer H2. The H2 was built off a Chevy Tahoe chassis, but was wider, taller, and looked like an inflated H1. The H2 sold a lot in the first year or two, but even with a new, more efficient engine for 2008 it has completely lost its appeal with $4.00 a gallon gas. The H2 has always been a horrible truck, but now that it is still based off the old Tahoe when for less money you could have a new redesigned Tahoe Hybrid or GMC Yukon Denali. The Hummer H3 was brought out in 2006 and was fairly successful because of its tough looks, reasonable price, and how other people thought it was a $60,000 H2. The H3 was built off the Chevy Colorado and had its 22ohp 3.5L I5 engine. That engine was too underpowered for the H3's wieght, it took 11 seconds to get to 60mph and could get stuck off road because of not having the power to get over things. For 2007 the engine was changed to a 3.7L and had 22 more horsepower. The H3's chassis is another problem, it was designed for an inexpensive truck and therefore drives worse than pretty much any new vehicle. Gas mileage on the H3 is still less than 20mpg and the 295hp 5.3L V8 H3 Alpha gets worse gas mileage than a Chevy Suburban. The H3 was also bad in the frontal crash test by IIHS, it only got an acceptable and it was rated poor for whiplash protection. The only good part of the H3 is that with the V8 Alpha version it is better off road than the H2, but is still worse off road than a Land Rover LR2, Nissan Pathfinder, Nissan Xterra, Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Toyota 4Runner, and Toyota FJ Cruiser. The simply can't compete on road, off road, and in a crash with any of those SUV's and new H3T pickup won't be any better. Hummer isn't making money for GM and unless they make a car based, fuel efficient, practical, inexpensive, and safe crossover they won't, but that wouldn't work as a Hummer since none of the Hummers have those traits. GM can't afford to keep Hummer anymore, so they have sell it before the lose too much money on it.

Has Ford Made a Good Car With the Edge

For a long time Ford hasn't been able to make any cars that were good. The Taurus for example was terribly built, slow, ugly, unsafe, and terrible to drive. The Crown Victoria was even worse. It was 212 inches long, had a rigid axle, failed the side crash tests, and its huge 4.6L V8 only had 230hp. When they brought out the Five Hundred and Freestyle were their first good cars in a long time. Now they have the Edge crossover. The Edge looks good, it is modern and overall attractive looking. The Edge is based on the Ford Fusion, which means it drives just like the Fusion, but it's taller, higher, and heavier. The Edge got a top safety pick (good in frontal, side, whiplash protection tests and has stability control) crash test rating from IIHS. The Edge also has a great 3.5L V6 with 263hp, plenty of power for the Edge's 4500lb weight. The Edge is comfortable and quiet on the highway or almost any surface, besides gravel where our 2008 Edge SEL rental car was rather noisy. The seats were large and very comfortable, the rear seats had plenty of space and reclined. The front seats were good, but the passenger's seat sat too low and wasn't height adjustable. The interior is good looking and seems very well made, our rental had 10,000 miles on it, but it still seemed new. The Edge is a good value too, at $29,000 the SEL AWD is very well equipped and nice. The biggest problem the Edge has is its driving position. The seat is low to make it feel like a car, but the dashboard it too high and hood is low, so when you drive it you can't see the end of the front. The Edge should also have more cargo space than it does, a Honda CR-V seems bigger inside. The Edge is a very good car, but the Nissan Murano is better. The Ford Taurus X is better too, but is more boring and slightly more expensive. The Hyundai Santa Fe and Dodge Journey are both less expensive, have 2 more seats, the Santa Fe has more space, and the Santa Fe is safer.

Is the Mini a Good Car?

In 2001 BMW brought out a new Mini that looked like the original Mini, which was brought out in 1959.  The original Mini was sold in England until 2000 as an Austin, but the 1959 design too unsafe and nowhere near modern enough for for the 21st century. The car BMW ended up with was amazing, it was small, fun to drive, fairly inexpensive, and quite safe. The Mini was a huge success, when it was brought out people could buy one and because it was so desirable they could sell it a year later for more than they paid for it new. The Mini was one of the first superminis to have an independent rear suspension and to get a 4 star crash test rating from the EuroNCAP. The Mini's handling and looks are the two reasons for its success. In Europe the base model Mini was called the Mini One, it had just 90hp, but that turned out to be plenty of power for the Mini's wonderful chassis to be fun and as an extra advantage the One was quite fuel efficient. The Mini One was also available as a diesel, but that had only 70hp, which was mostly useless. We got the Mini Cooper and Cooper S (Europe got all the versions of the Mini). The Cooper did the same thing here as the Mini One did in Europe, it was huge fun to drive, except it managed to be fuel efficient at the same time. The Cooper S was the best one of all, it had a supercharged 1.6L I4 that made 162hp (later versions had 168hp), which meant this was by far the most fun version, until they made 214hp John Cooper Works version. They even managed to make the convertible version just as much fun, which makes no sense at all when you consider that the over $60,000 BMW M3 convertible is terrible to drive compared with the coupe. Now there is an all new Mini, that looks the same, but isn't. The new one is just as fun to drive as before, but also adds some comfort and practicality to the package. It still has a back seat only suitable small dogs and children with no legs and the trunk is still too small for a suitcase. The new car's 1.6 liter in line 4 comes from Peugeot and is more powerful. The Cooper engine has 120hp, that engine is found in the Peugeot 207 and 308. The Cooper S has a turbocharged version of that engine the 1.6L engine that makes 175hp, meaning the new car is even faster and slightly more fun to drive than the old new Mini Cooper S and there is a new JCW version that has 208hp, which is a lot in such a small car. Again Europe gets a Mini One, but the new car has 95hp and some people think the Mini One is the most fun to drive of them all. The best version now is probably the new Cooper D. It has 110hp, which is more than enough to make the Mini very fun to drive. It also manages to get 53mpg combined, partly because of the stop/start system that turns off the engine at stop lights, but you can turn the feature off if it gets annoying. Mini has messed up with the pointless Clubman. I think a longer more practical Mini is silly, because the Mini will always be small, but a larger one still won't work as somebody's only car. The Clubman also looks stupid, still has a small back seat, and isn't as fast as the normal car. There will be a new Mini convertible and that should be very good. The other thing the new Mini does well is crash, it got a 5 star crash test rating from the EuroNCAP, but stability control is easy to get, so it's less likely to crash as well. This is a truly great car.

The BMW M3, How Good is the New One?

BMW brought out a more powerful, more performance oriented version of their E30 3-series in 1986. They called it the M3, it had a 2.3L 4 cylinder engine producing 192hp (some M3s had 215hp versions of the 2.3L engine and they had some with a 238hp 2.5L I4). It wasn't terribly fast, 0-60 took around 7 seconds (the 238hp car was about one second faster), but the handling and the way it drove was better than just about any other car of the time. The E30 M3 is still thought of as one of the most fun to drive cars of all time. It was certainly better than its replacement, the E36 M3. BMW brought out the E36 M3 in 1992, it had only 240hp in the US versions, but 286hp in the much better European versions. The E36 3-series was never a very good car, despite its rear wheel drive chassis the front wheel drive Volvo 850 was just as good to drive. It wasn't safe at all either, it only got 2 stars from EuroNCAP and was flagged for a serious safety problem. In 1996 a the E36 M3's 3.0L I6 was enlarged to 3.2 liters and European versions got 321hp, meaning it was a competitor to the Porsche 911, but US versions were still being beat by Volvo 850 T5s and Rs. In 2000 we got the proper E46 M3, this time the US version only had 10 less horsepower than the European version, we got a 333hp 3.2L I6 this time. The E46 M3 was a wonderful car, it had a great chassis and one of the best engines in the world. Now there is a E92 M3 and I think it is the best M3 yet. It is the first M3 to have a V8 engine, that V8 engine takes every one of the previous M3 engines, as great as they were, and completely destroys them. It has 420hp, from only 4.0 liters, 295lb, revs to 8000 rpm, and sounds wonderful. The best part of all in the new M3 is its wonderful handling. In a Car and Driver comparison the M3 beat both the amazing new 480hp Porsche 911 and the laws of physics breaking Nissan GT-R R35. The M3 doesn't have the classic design of the 911, but for $53000 (sedan) or $56,000 (coupe) it is a much better performance car for the money. The practicality of the sedan is also very useful, because it has a large back seat and big trunk the M3 sedan is a good family car as well as a world beating sports car. BMW has made a big mistake by selling a convertible M3. The convertible is soft and has sloppy handling compared with any coupe, sedan, or sportwagon 3-Series, just like what. The convertible is also ugly, they tried to make it look like a 3-Series coupe, but because of the stupid folding metal roof it has a longer trunk (the trunk is still much smaller) and they messed up the rear roof line. I think the M3 is better than the M5 and M6, because it has a better chassis than both, meaning it is much better to drive, it looks much better, costs a lot less, has a better engine, and is safer than a M5. The new M3 is probably the best new car of 2008 and one of the all time great cars.