Saturday, June 20, 2009

What is the Best 7 Seat Crossover? Again

I wrote a blog post about 7 seat crossover SUVs in July, 2008 and now I'm writing one again. In the last 11 months a whole new crop of crossovers have appeared, but are any of them better than the Mazda CX-9, the vehicle I chose as the best last time?
First of all I'd like to point out the worst of these crossovers. It's the Mercedes-Benz R-Class, a car that is completely pointless and if it weren't for the BlueTEC diesel version it would have no right to exist. The R-Class has a useless third row seat, not much cargo space, but there are some large parts of it, the length and price are two examples. The next worst of these is the Subaru Tribeca, a car I really wanted to like because I like Subaru's, but it just isn't good. What Subaru did to create this car is take the Outback give it a taller, more curvaceous body, a third row seat, a fancy looking interior, and a few other finishing touches. The problem is that in the process a grille with a giant hole through the middle of it and a rear end that looked like it had already been crashed into made their way onto the car, so Subaru gave the car some plastic surgery and a larger engine to fix these problems, but now it just looks boring and still isn't a match for even that last generation Honda Pilot.
Now that we're done with the truly awful cars we can get onto the good cars. The Volvo XC90 is a good crossover and the first one that was well designed, but after nearly 7 years and the only changes being new engines and a host of new safety features it needs a redesign. Another crossover that's aging now, but is still very good is the Cadillac SRX. The SRX is good to drive, luxurious, fast with the V8, and comfortable, but short on space and about to be replaced by a Saturn Vue based 5 seat crossover. Then there's the BMW X5, which is a very good vehicle that's now available with the best diesel engine sold in North America, but it needs more space to work well as a family vehicle. The Audi Q7 is another good SUV that now has a very good diesel, but the Q7 has less power and more weight which is okay, because diesels have so much torque and there's plenty of power anyway. The Q7 is a very good vehicle, but I'm afraid it's too expensive.
Now for the opposite end of the price scale we have the Suzuki XL-7, a mediocre vehicle, but at a very reasonable price, $25,000 for a base model and just over $30,000 fully loaded. The XL-7 isn't good enough to be the best value of these, but the Hyundai Veracruz isn't much more expensive and gives you a lot more features, quality, safety, performance, and luxury. The Veracruz is a good family vehicle, but not much of a driver's car.
The Ford Flex is one of the new crossovers, but it's essentially a more attractive version of the outgoing Taurus X. The Flex is a very roomy, safe, and comfortable family vehicle that comes loaded with cool technology sure to entertain children for years. Unfortunately there's almost nothing to entertain the driver, because it's too heavy, slow, and reacts too slowly to driver input for it to be fun. The upcoming Lincoln MKT hopes to improve on the Flex's problems. The MKT hopefully will have a slightly firmer suspension, better steering, and less weight, so that it will make the most of the 355hp EcoBoost 3.5L V6.
I still maintain that the Buick Enclave/Chevy Traverse/GMC Acadia/Saturn Outlook are the roomiest and most practical, but I think the Enclave looks too feminine. These crossovers aren't great to drive, but they're more involving than the Ford Flex and have good engines as well as a pretty good suspension setup.
The Honda Pilot, Mazda CX-9, and Toyota Highlander are all great vehicles and the closest competitors of all the vehicles listed so far. Each one has it's own strengths, but the Highlander seems to have the least of these three. The Highlander is everything it should be, but to beat the CX-9 and Pilot it needs to be better to drive and more modern. The Mazda has lots of space and is good to drive, but I no longer think it's the best crossover. I was very wrong about the new Pilot in the July 08' post, because while I still think Honda should have gone for a lower, more car-like look rather than the boxy truck-like style it has, it's actually a very good vehicle. The Pilot is comfortable, safe, well built, good to drive, and has all the technology you will want. That means that the Honda Pilot is the best mainstream 7 seat crossover.
That still leaves the space of best 7 seat crossover still empty and the guiding question unanswered. The best 7 seat crossover is the Acura MDX. The MDX is the first SUV that drives like it's a sport sedan and without a back snapping suspension like the BMW X3 which doesn't even handle that well. The MDX instead achieves this with a all wheel drive system that distributes power, torque, and braking to each wheel independently and active dampers. The MDX therefore will make everybody in the family happy, the driver will enjoy driving it, the passenger will be comfortable and has lots of toys, and the kids have DVD, radio, and more to play with. The MDX has tons of luxury, safety, performance, and plenty of space. In fact the MDX could be the first car I can't find something on to criticize. Well done Honda!

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

The Government is Destroying the American Auto Industry

With GM and Chrysler both bankrupt and Ford headed for bankruptcy it looks like we could end up with a nationalized auto industry. Chrysler is being bought out by Fiat and the government will relinquish its control over Chrysler, but GM seems to be completely controlled by the government. History has shown that nationalized car companies don't work. British Leyland is known for being a failure and making horrible cars, but when they were founded in 1968 they made some very good cars. The problems began in 1975 when BL was nationalized. Some very good cars like the Jaguar XJ6 and Range Rover were ruined by the cost cutting that destroyed the car. Other cars that could have been good like the Rover SD1, Jaguar XJ-S, and 1980's versions of the Jaguar XJ were ruined because nationalization made the cars horribly built and unreliable.
With GM quality and reliability are already concerns, but governments always want to cut costs and they will with GM. GM will have much less money for engineering, design, parts, and other things important to making cars. The government doesn't know what people want and what they'll buy. I think that leaving much of our auto industry in the hands of the government is a recipe for disaster.
The government is going to horribly damage the auto industry in the U.S. for all companies by introducing the 39 mpg average across fleets by 2016. The idea behind this is to use less oil and pollute less, but that won't be the result of these rules, because our oil consumption is a result of how much we use cars and other machines. The effects of this fuel economy rule will be, much more expensive cars, smaller cars , less safe cars, no more supercars, very slow cars, worse quality, less comfort, and much less space. I think this is the stupidest thing our government has done in decades. Another effect of this will be higher fatality rates, because cars will have lighter weaker structures, less airbags, and less crash avoidance systems. Another problem is that these gas mileage standards will be measured using EPA ratings, which is a system that doesn't work. The EPA ratings give gas mileage rating for the stupid hybrids that are much higher than the cars can actually get and they give diesels the much lower rating than the cars actually get. The EPA ratings for a Volkswagen Jetta TDI are 30mpg city and 41 mpg highway, but the Jetta TDI easily gets 35-38mpg city and 47-50mpg highway. There are lots of people who have families or live and work in places where they need trucks and SUVs, but unless they get 30mpg they won't be allowed. You can't put 3 kids in the back seat of a Honda Insight with luggage for a 600 mile trip and you can't tow a 10,000 pound trailer with an economy car. Governments should quit trying to tell us what to drive, because people will drive what they want and live how they want.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Why Top Gear USA can't Happen

About a year ago SBC in Australia announced that it would be making an Australian version of the hugely successful and absolutely brilliant BBC Top Gear. A few months later NBC announced that it would be making an American version of Top Gear. Then, a couple months later they had chosen the shows presenters and the show was expected to be on TV earlier this year. Now there's a good chance that it won't even happen, but that doesn't really bother me. NBC has done a pretty terrible job of setting up the show.
Ezra Dyer of Automobile Magazine recently wrote a column in the magazine about what happened when he was invited to audition for the show. His first audition he said went terribly, but his second audition shows what is so terribly wrong with the show. In the second audition he was told that it was for the James May of the show. For those of you unfamiliar with BBC's Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson is very tall, not terribly smart, and very very outspoken, but unbelievably funny and talented. Richard Hammond is very short, a talented driver and daredevil, and every woman in England seems to be in love with him. James May has the nickname Captain Slow, because he drives (slowly) a 60 hp Fiat Panda, is a musician by training, and has several TV shows about Wine, but he is also arguably the most funny and was the best addition to the show. The BBC wasn't looking for racing car drivers or anybody who is that obviously interested in cars. All three of the Top Gear presenters are self described petrolheads and that is the key to the show's success. The three of them have personalities that work together brilliantly. Two of the three people NBC chose are racing car drivers, the first choice Tanner Foust has a show on SPEED Channel, but was also in the 2008 Race Of Champions. The person who got the James May position has a home improvement show on HGTV and drives a Toyota Camry Hybrid, which means he isn't a petrolhead. A petrolhead would never buy such a terrible car and I know you'll be saying that James May bought a very slow minicar, but the Panda much more like a Mini, fun, fuel efficient, and not very fast.
They simply can't make a show that attempts to copy another show, it will be a huge disappointment. The people they chose aren't funny, I've seen their other shows before, they're not funny and not all that entertaining. In his column Ezra Dyer also brings up how few car shows there are here. As he says the car is something we use every day, but there are more TV shows about bass fishing and hunting than about cars, but only a few people hunt or go bass fishing regularly. Many of the car shows we have here are just stupid, shows like Pimp My Ride, Overhaulin', and all those silly custom car, tuner car, and drag racing show are crap. The only real car show here I can think of is MotorWeek, which can only be described as educational, it's less entertaining than Consumer Reports. Jay Leno was the perfect person for this show, but he refused to be on a show that will become a rather pathetic imitation of the real show.
The BBC Top Gear isn't afraid to be extreme and offensive, but an NBC version will be wimpy in comparison. NBC doesn't like to offend anybody, just watch the TODAY show, it's full of soft news and they don't criticize anybody that is popular. The NBC version of Top Gear won't be able to criticize cars like the Toyota Prius that are seen as socially responsible, even though it's terrible. Anything they want to do that is irresponsible, dangerous, or might anger some environmentalists won't happen. If they want to make an American version of Top Gear it needs to be extreme, entertaining, and hilarious, but if the show goes on the way it is it won't be any of those. What NBC should do is show BBC's Top Gear, but that would be too offensive and would definitely anger environmentalists and hippies. Maybe Fox would be able to make a good Top Gear USA, shows that they have like The Simpsons are more offensive.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Has Toyota Forgotten They Make Cars not Light Switches

Toyota has just released a new Prius and it’s just as boring as the last one. Based on all Toyota’s recent designs I’m worried that their designers have forgotten that they’re designing cars. Take the Camry for example, every time they redesign it, it just looks like an inflated version of the last one. The Yaris is easily their best-looking car, but next to its competitors it appears flimsy and plain. The Corolla is so plain and boring that in order to prevent drivers from falling asleep it should come with a lifetime supply of Red Bull. The Matrix is only slightly more interesting, but compared to its less expensive identical twin, the Pontiac Vibe, it’s about as interesting as one of those Discovery Channel documentaries about quilting. The Avalon, Toyota’s flagship is a very good car, but the styling reeks of Buick. Lexus had the same problem for a long time, but all their new cars are quite attractive. The Scions aren’t all that attractive, but they are interesting and very contemporary. Even Toyota’s legendary quality and reliability has almost disappeared. Their reliability ratings have slipped recently in the surveys and the quality in the new Camry is much worse than the Ford Fusion.

The only Toyotas that are interesting are the Land Cruiser, Tundra, Venza (Even though it’s pointless), and Rav4. That isn’t much and it only gets worse when you consider that Lexus still has its share of dangerously boring cars. The ES350 for example is not only very boring, but also a huge rip-off since it’s just a Camry XLE with a big sunroof, the SC430 is about as interesting as wallpaper, and the GX470 wins the award for luxury SUV most obviously just a fancy version of a much less expensive SUV, even the new LS is too boring for me. Toyota seems to have lost the ability to make an exciting car, they certainly have before, but now the only truly exciting Toyota is the Lexus IS-F. All of Toyota’s sporty cars have gone in the last five years. The Supra was the first to go. The Supra was never a great looking car, but it always had great performance and handling. The MR2 and Celica were the last of Toyota’s performance cars, but they are the most missed. The MR2 was a great car, it was good looking, handled very well, and in the early 1990’s had 200hp. The Celica was essentially just a Corolla coupe, but it was always much better looking, often had more power, and had better handling. The Celica would be an easy car for Toyota to make again, but if they want it to succeed it needs a fully independent rear suspension and at least 200hp.

Toyota also seems to be the only Japanese car company whose cars are almost all less interesting than your toaster. Honda’s cars may not be great looking, but they’re all very good to drive. Just look at what Honda has achieved, they’re the first and only company to make a large Minivan that’s enjoyable to drive. Honda also has the best manual transmissions and offers them on many of their cars. The reason for this is that Honda was started by a person, a person whose dream was to make great cars. That‘s the reason that brilliant cars like the S800, NSX, S2000, Civic Type-R (sold in Asia and Europe), and CRX existed. The S800, S2000, and NSX were all cars that didn’t have much chance of being profitable, but they were all absolutely brilliant, some of the best cars of all time. I think Honda also has best blend of ride and handling short of BMW or Audi, all their cars are smooth and comfortable, but also have class-leading handling. The Fit and Accord are perfect examples; they’re not only the best cars in their classes, but also the most fun. The only subcompact that is more fun than the Fit is the Mini, but that’s too small, too expensive, and too impractical. Nissan’s ride and handling may not be as good as Honda’s, but it’s by no means bad (except for the Sentra). Nissan’s strength is styling, as a whole they have the best-looking cars of all the mainstream brands. That is largely due to its Renault ownership, which you can tell if you compare their cars from this decade to their cars from the last decade. Nissan like Toyota was started to make money, but unlike Toyota they have a brand personality and make lots of interesting cars. They had to have known that they couldn’t make money off the GT-R, which cost a fortune to develop, but sells for half what cars with similar performance cost. The same is true of the Skyline GT-R’s that preceded it, but never came here. Mazda is very similar to Nissan, but they have exhibited more traits of a company run by petrolheads (gearhead in America or just car enthusiast). Mazda have two cars that really demonstrate this, the RX-8 and MX-5 Miata. The RX-8, RX-7, and all their other rotary engine ancestors are all cars only a petrolhead would build. The rotary engine was a great idea in the 1960’s, but traditional engines quickly caught up in power and refinement, but Mazda has stuck with it just like Porsche did with the rear engine in the 911 even though there was a more sensible alternative all along. Toyota has never really done that, but they have come quite close. They are capable of making beautiful cars, the 1967 2000GT proves that very well and they can make interesting cars, but they just don’t. The Land Cruiser is the exception though, it isn’t a vehicle they make money off here or in Europe, but they sell it here anyway and I’m very happy that they do. The Land Cruiser is like the Range Rover was for a long time, obviously outdated compared to the competition, but somehow much more lovable and endearing than most of the other SUVs. That isn’t to say that the new Range Rover isn’t endearing and loveable, the Range Rover isn’t outdated.

The new Honda Insight is the closest competitor to the new Prius and on paper the Prius is better in every respect except cost ($4000 more) and acceleration (.2 seconds slower to 60), but the Insight still won its first Motor Trend comparison. Many of the problems with the old Prius are resolved, it’s a lot faster, gets better gas mileage, and the car no longer shudders over bumps you don’t even know exist in a similar car. The reason that the Insight won is simple, the Insight combines a reasonable price, 50 mpg, and very little pollution with attractive styling and since it’s a Honda an enjoyable driving experience. The Prius may look a lot better than either of the old ones, but those were less interesting to look at than a light switch. The Insight on the other hand looks great with in every respect except the tiny 15-inch wheels. The interior of the Prius looks good in pictures, but in I’ve seen one in person and it just looks and feels like 50 acres of plastic that doesn’t fit very well. Hopefully the Lexus HS250h will have a better interior, but for now the Prius is a disappointment. Fortunately the Insight is well built, a good value, and as good to drive as the Fit automatic, but not as much fun Fit manual. As far as I’m concerned the only thing the new Prius does is proves just how badly Toyota needs to improve their designs, maybe they should give the designers more coffee and if that doesn’t work, Red Bull might work.