|
| Home RSS Directory F.A.Q Suggest A Feed Try Custom Feed Sonneries Portable |
Latest Flows from this sub-category: random selection from this sub-category: |
The Truth About Cars is dedicated to providing candid, unbiased automobile reviews and the latest in auto industry news. Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200 - As you probably know, TTAC is an R-rated site. After a discussion with our readers, we decided to allow swearing on both sides of the editorial curtain, subject to existing anti-flaming regs. In this Brave New e-World, the fall-out from our "no bad word left behind" policy has been... non-existent. Even so, you can hardly expect our good friends over at G-rated, AOL-owned Autoblog to allow 'effing and blinding (although flaming and trolling doesn't seem to be an issue). So it's no surprise that John Neff's blog on a swear-laden "That's a Saturn?" ad provides some unavoidable comic relief. "Steve Hall at AdGabber found a different version of the commercial, which we'll call 'That's a f@#$% Saturn!'. It seems after they had gotten the footage that Saturn's ad agency requested, the actors, director and production crew had some fun and made a different, rated R version of the commercial that probably more closely resembles reality than the canned responses in the original commercial." Reality? Aside from the Sky (anyone remember the Sky?), no one's ever done a verbal double take on a Saturn. More importantly. this is not a bunch of bored actors "goofing off." It's an officially-sanctioned viral-ready production (mission accomplished) designed to get slackers to "rethink" Saturn's flag-waving, American-as-apple-pie image. Call me a fucking hypocrite, but I liked "The Different Kind of Car Company's" picnics, honesty and just plain folks approach. The swearing Saturnalia may make industry insiders chuckle, but this will not play well in Peoria. Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200  I had an interesting conversation this morning with one Mr. Justin Berkowitz. Among other topics we discussed: the fact that most people are happy with their cars. As car scribes, we have the luxury of ripping apart $44k BMW convertibles because, well, we didn't buy 'em. As RF often points out, an automobile is the average person's second most expensivepurchase. Or, if you live in New York (like Justin) or Los Angeles (like me), a car is by far the most expensive good you can afford (though I did see a lovely two bedroom, one bathroom for the reduced price of only $640k the other weekend...). Years ago a friend of mine bought a 2001 Ford Escort. Horrid, nasty little thing. Ugly, slow, worst build quality imaginable and awful to drive. I told her, "Don't buy that." But, she did. Even after multiple "issues," she still claims she loved it. She even shed a tear when it was totaled. Me, I love my car. It's my second WRX wagon (a 2006). And the more press cars I drive, the deeper I fall head over heals in love with my own car. I can't believe anyone drives anything else. Now, am I that much smarter than my fellow man, or just blinded by love? And what about you and your car? Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200  And so it continues: the debate about the Toyota Prius as a fuel saver/economy car/green badge of honor/etc. over on Captain Mike's review. Sammy Hagar's off-hand comment about the Prius cannibalizing Camry sales intrigued me. For some strange reason-- not anti-Detroit bias I can assure you (if you can be assured)-- I'd never thought of the Prius as a cannibal. But it makes perfect (imperfect?) sense. If you're in the market for "inexpensive, efficient, reliable transportation that makes you feel good about not driving anything else," why wouldn't you choose the Prius over the Camry? Or, for that matter, the Camry over the Prius? We've heard rumors that ToMoCo's going to launch the Prius as a fourth brand. On one hand, yes. On the other hand, uh-oh. Toyota's entirely useless Scion brand (remind me again what PRODUCT-related focus they bring to the table) is one GM-style branding mistake. Launching a Prius brand would be another. In fact, it looks to me like Toyota could, some day, maybe, not beyond the scope of possibility, become the new GM (especially when the old GM goes C11). Hey, empires rise, empires fall. C'est la guerre. Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200  No, we're not talking about Tony Romo and Jessica Simpson's impending breakup. We're quoting directly from the mustachioed horse's mouth. The headline my friends, is none other than Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche (Dr. Z to you and me) discussing why the 1998 "merger of equals" between Mercedes-Benz and Chrysler failed so miserably. To refresh your memory (in case your life is filled with more interesting activities than watching the disintegration of poorly planned global corporations)... Daimler sold Chrysler for billions and billions less than they paid for it to a hedge fund last year. Our favorite David Cross-lookalike CEO was speaking to gathered business leaders at a symposium about "Global Capitalism, Local Values" trying to explain exactly went so badly. He points to the level of cooperation between MB and Chrysler as being "less" than he would have liked. Dr. Z goes on to say that Daimler learned a valuable lesson. "It's fair to say that we overestimated the potential of passing leading-edge technology from Mercedes-Benz to Chrysler. Unlike premium brand customers, American volume brand customers are far too price-sensitive to absorb its cost." To which TTAC says, "Duh!" And of course, know thy brand. Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200
Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200  I'm the first to admit, I'm not the biggest fan of drag racing. Yes, I intellectually understand how powerful, nifty and skilled everyone involved in the sport is. But I'm just not a fan. However -- and a big however -- I do love the technology that goes into and comes out of drag racing. More power, stronger components and lighter weight. Guess what? Chrysler is about to make all my dreams come true. Motor Authority is describing the Challenger drag racing kit as a throwback to the Hemi Dart and Barracuda packages of decades gone by. Specifically, what do you get? A lighter chassis. This is the big one, as the Challenger SRT-8 weighs more than a 1970 New Yorker. No, really. Internet speculation is claiming the chassis will be 800 pounds less fat. Which is (or isn't) huge. Draggers will also get lots of engine choices (duh), the possibility of a manual transmission, better brakes, seats, cooling, a working hood scoop and a lift off composite hood. The drag racing package is aimed at both pros and amateurs, is currently being vetted by the NHRA (National Hot Rod Association) to sanction the kit for competition use. I can smell the top fuel now. And the pomade. Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200
Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200  VW's announced a new North American factory and whittled down the short list of locations in Alabama, Tennessee and (yeah right) Michigan. Volkswagen has only one problem with its U.S. market strategy, which calls for sales of 1m units per year: "we need models for the US market." Yes there is that. In an interview with Auto Motor und Sport, VW works council boss Bernd Osterloh says that picking the right models for the American market is a far more important (undecided?) issue than the American factory's location (yes way). That said, Osterloh claims the decision is not urgent; VW's Mexican facilities can begin production of the new, as-yet-undecided American models before the new factory is online. Osterloh calls the U.S. market a herausforderung (loosely translated as a pain in the ass) for the entire industry. Apparently VW doesn't even have a coherent diesel strategy for their deeply respected American consumers. For a German firm, that's saying a lot. Machts schnell burschen! Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200
Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200  Green Car Congress reports that GM will offer two new engines in 2009, based on its global Ecotec four-cylinder architecture. The 1.4-liter direct-injection turbocharged four-banger and 1.6-liter Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) turbocharged four-cylinder will debut in "Europe and other regions." The uro 5 compliant 1.4-liter four will offer between 120 and 140 hp and eight percent better fuel consumption than a higher displacement naturally-aspirated engine with similar output. Direct injection and independently-variable camshafts account for much of the improved efficiency, and provide a platform onto which GM's HCCI technology can be transferred. The 1.6-liter CNG mill should pump out about 150 hp and 155 lb/ft of torque. This announcement cements the trend towards smaller engines with forced induction, as championed by Ford's forthcoming Ecoboost line of turbocharged mills. Although we're not holding our breath to see GM launch a sub-two liter engine in the U.S., the 1.4-liter engine would likely make the Cobalt or the Aveo a force to be reckoned with-- at least in terms of fuel economy. Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200  CTVNews reports that the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) has reached deals with both GM and Chrysler for its Ontario members. The agreements mirror those that the CAW obtained from Ford. According to the official story: "Workers will see their wages frozen for three years in exchange for improvements in other areas." "Other areas?" Such as not getting fired in the first place? The crux of the deal: Buzz Hargrove successfully delayed the inevitable. GM-Oshawa's planned shift reduction is put off until 2009, and Chrysler's Etobicoke plant, on death row for over a decade, will have its life extended to 2011. Hargrove is spinning the wage freeze as a victory, noting that he's "done the very best to protect as many jobs as we could and protect and support people who won't have a job"-- despite failing to secuire long-term plans for either of the two plants. We now return you to our regular discussion of American Axle's ongoing strike. Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200  Not content to make money the old fashioned way, a team of MIT grads has been hard at work for the past couple of years working on a two passenger Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200  Did you know that sprinter Michael Duane Johnson could (can?) run 27 miles per hour? Obviously, he could only maintain that pace long enough to catch a bus or win an Olympic medal, and he'd have a hard time doing either whilst talking on the cell and carrying a child in one of those humongous child seats. But the point remains: 20mph is a very, very slow for a car. And a more important question also persists: is 20mph safer than say, 25mph? Or 30mph? In absolute terms, if we're talking about car - pedestrian contact, ipso facto. The faster the car at the moment of impact, the more energy involved. But driving safety's a slippery customer, where the primary variables are the driver's level of attentiveness, personal reaction times and a wide variety of road conditions. So, will the UK's decision to lower speed limits in town centers to 20mph help the Government reduce road deaths from 3,000 to 2,000 a year? To make that analysis, you'd have to know how many of those fatalities involved pedestrians in town centers, what speed the contact occurred, if a reduced speed would have prevented the fatality, and what other, perhaps more crucial variables were in play. From a public policy standpoint, you'd have to also analyze the expense of changing the signs and time lost vs. any other, perhaps more effective measures. But two things are for sure: that's a debate the UK isn't having, and no other measure would collect so much-- if any-- revenue for the government. And remember: it's all for the children. Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200
Sat, 17 May 2008 05:05:35 +0200
Click here for |
  |
contact |
All rss from this site
Print this article
Webmasters ! Get this feed on your site
