Archive | June, 2007

For Your Viewing Pleasure

Where we get a little avant-garde on you…

By Brendan Moore

06.17.2007

We have a friend of ours named David Pan who is both a professional photographer, and, interested in cars. His interest in cars is mostly from a design perspective, because that’s the way he rolls, but that’s OK with us.

He took photos at a Dream Machines (cars, motorcycles, aircraft, etc.) event awhile ago and finally got those photos up online. Some good stuff here, even though it was an overcast day – lots of close shots focused on a single design element of whatever car he was shooting.

Here’s the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/prodesma

Some other shots there as well; aircraft, etc. but we’re all about the cars, you know, so here we are. These shots are not the full-angle shots that you see in a review piece so you can see the whole car or a whole side of a car, but rather, are of a more artistic bent. Hope you enjoy the photos.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 1 }

The Ten Best Chryslers of the Past 25 Years

By Chris Haak

06.15.2006

The second in a series; click here for the Ten Worst Chryslers of the past 25 Years. These are in no particular order.


Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger/Dodge Magnum (2005-present) The LX cars are probably the best cars that Chrysler has ever built. They’re big, stylish, bold, and are available with optional 6.1 liter 425-horsepower Hemi V8s. Plus, they have high-tech features like independent rear suspension (on a chassis derived from the Mercedes-Benz parts bin), five speed automatics, available all wheel drive, and more. The cars are also very popular with tuners; one of my favorite upgrades is the Bentley-style grille, but another common one is Lamborghini-style scissor doors. The platform is apparently very flexible, because a modified version of it will underpin the Dodge Challenger coming out in year or two. Further evidence of its success is the fact that GM and Ford are either producing, or considering producing, large RWD competitors to the Chrysler LX cars (Pontiac G8, Chevy Impala, and Ford Interceptor, for example). The only chink in their armor is an interior that doesn’t match the promise of their powertrains, chassis, or exterior style, but Chrysler is aware of the problem and is working on it.

Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager/Chrysler Town & Country (1996-present) While Chrysler invented the modern minivan in 1984 and spawned an entire segment of copycats, and I give them credit for that, I cannot in good conscience rank the 1984-1995 original minivans among Chrysler’s best efforts (severely underpowered, underdeveloped transmissions, sub-par fit and finish). However, the 1996 models ushered in the vans’ first complete redesign, which meant a new platform, new shape, and new interior. Even though the 1996 vans look similar to 2007s, there was a pretty major mid cycle enhancement in 2001, and the vans were continually improved each year. These vans have deservedly proven to be a cash cow for Chrysler. The minivans also pass the “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” test; Honda’s and Toyota’s vans weren’t successful until they finally decided to copy Chrysler’s formula.


Chrysler PT Cruiser (2001-present) Although the PT Cruiser is getting a little long in the tooth, when it was introduced, it looked like nothing else on the road. It drew waiting lists and dealer markups on what was basically a taller version of the Neon chassis. The interior managed to strike an upscale, art deco tone with body-colored accents and nicely-grained plastics. The car’s 2006 refresh cheapened the interior to knock it down to the level of other Chryslers, but the car is an icon and has likely exceeded all of its original sales goals. My mom wanted one when they first came out, but my parents never ended up getting one; they wound up with a 2004 SSR eventually instead.


Dodge Intrepid/Eagle Vision/Chrysler Concorde/LHS/New Yorker (1993-2004)
These cars made their debut under much hype at a time that Chrysler was in yet another financial crisis. They received much adoration and praise from customers and the automotive media. They were the first Chrysler vehicles to feature a “cab forward” design, which pushed the wheels to the corners of the car and the base of the windshield forward, partially over the engine. The result was a more aerodynamic, more modern look and increased passenger space. Having the wheels at the corners also improved handling, and the cars had extremely competitive engine offerings for their day. A close friend owned a 1995 Intrepid ES that he bought as a used demo model, and he put nearly a quarter million miles on it. Sure, by the end of its life with him, plenty of things stopped working, but it took a whack into a raised concrete median to finally bend the suspension and motivate him to sell the car. Last I heard, it’s still on the road with its new owner.


Dodge Stealth (1991-1996) The Dodge Stealth wasn’t really a Dodge, but rather a rebadged Mitsubishi 3000GT sport coupe. On paper, the car was pretty awesome, especially in the top-level R/T guise: 300 horsepower, twin turbo, 5-speed manual, all wheel drive, four wheel steering, active aerodynamics, and tunable suspension. The Stealth carried Dodge’s performance flagship banner admirably until Viper production began. The only downside with the car, other than high insurance premiums for the twin turbo models, was the extreme weight that all of the techno-goodies added to the car. Still, they were really neat cars, if perhaps a little boy racer-ish in a 1990’s Pontiac sort of way.


Dodge Viper (1992-present) What can be said about the Viper that hasn’t been said already? For a while, it was the most powerful production car sold in the US. It made its debut with 400 horsepower, no air conditioning, no glass side windows, no ABS, and functional side exhaust at a time when the Corvette was just reaching the 300 horsepower mark. The 2008 version, once it finally goes on sale, will produce 600 horsepower! Visually, I prefer the first version, which had a much more aggressive shape than did the toned-down second generation models (which debuted in 2003). Carroll Shelby, though I think he’s a huckster in many ways, had a hand in the development of the first Viper, and he truly did make it a spiritual successor to the Cobras of the 1960s.

Jeep Cherokee (1984-2001) Jeep misses the XJ Cherokee so much that it’s now tried three times (unsuccessfully) to replace it. First, the Liberty was supposed to be its replacement; it turned out to be more of a chick car than a credible Cherokee successor. Next, the Commander became a caricature of the Cherokee’s styling, except it lacked the short overhangs and clean proportions of the original. Finally, the Patriot has a lot of the Cherokee’s boxiness, and looks better than the Commander, but is based on a front-wheel drive car chassis. The XJ Cherokee had a huge following and was the vehicle that started the four door compact SUV craze. Sales grew every year, and the model survived long past its original cancellation date. In fact, they’re still built in China.


Chrysler Crossfire (2004-present) The Chrysler Crossfire was more or less a re-bodied version of the R170 (1997-2004) first generation Mercedes-Benz SLK roadster. The interior (including instrument panel) is almost identical between the two cars, but the Crossfire has more silver-appearing parts while the Mercedes went for a wood look. The Crossfire SRT-6 even had a 330 horsepower AMG-built engine. The looks weren’t bad – certainly better than the Sebring that appears to be inspired by it – and it is a great way to get a Mercedes (more or less) for bargain prices. Unfortunately, they are very slow sellers and this model’s days are numbered.


Plymouth/Chrysler Prowler (1997-2002) The Prowler was a concept car come to life. It kept nearly all of the concept’s good looks, except some compromises had to be made for the Prowler to be street legal and meet current safety standards. Although the front bumpers were a little awkward, many owners simply removed them. The car also had many aluminum components in the chassis. The only real problem with the Prowler was its V6 powertrain, which didn’t quite line up with the big promises its fantastic appearance made. This was addressed somewhat in later years with an upgraded engine, but imagine how awesome this car would have been with a Hemi. Only 11,702 were produced during a five year run.

Dodge Stratus/Chrysler Cirrus/Plymouth Breeze (1995-2006) The so-called “cloud cars” were Chrysler’s midsize sedan offerings, and were the third installment of the cab forward push at Chrysler Corporation (following the larger LH cars and the smaller Neon). Other than meteorological names, the cars also had pleasing designs inside and out – the wheels went to the edge of the fenders, even in lower trim levels, the dashboard had pleasant shapes, and they looked unlike any other car on the road in 1995 (well, the prominent grille did remind me of a 1992 Pontiac Grand Am). The cloud cars’ styling later manifested itself in the 1996 minivans, and looked pretty good on those as well.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 8 }

Time to Build Unreliable Cars?

By Chris Haak

06.15.2007

Logic tells you that owning a reliable vehicle that requires nothing more than routine maintenance such as tire rotations, oil changes, and filter replacements should be the equivalent of automotive utopia. Everyone wants a “bulletproof” car, right?

Well, almost everyone. Automotive News reported this week that improved vehicle quality over the past several years has significantly reduced the volume of warranty repairs performed by dealerships. According to GM, their volume of warranty repairs is down 40% since 1998. Ford has seen similar drops. Part of this reduction is from improved quality, but part is from reduced sales (if you sell 40% fewer cars, you’ll likely see 40% fewer warranty claims even if the quality remained constant). The oldest data I could find on sales was 1999 – for example, GM sold 2,591,420 vehicles that year, but sold 1,722,871 vehicles in 2006, which is a 33.5% reduction in new vehicle sales over the past seven years.

This reduction in warranty volume has started squeezing some domestic dealers, because fewer repairs per car is not being offset by increased sales per dealership as many import brands have seen. None of the dealers in the article have complained about the fact that cars are better than they were 10 years ago, but that’s probably because they didn’t want to sound bad in an interview. So I’ll say it for them…”please start building crappy cars that fall apart again so that we can make money from the manufacturer for warranty repairs.” To help out the GM dealers, I recommend an immediate resumption of Quad 4 production. Note to the dealers: keep plenty of head gaskets in stock.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 0 }

The Ten Worst Chrysler Vehicles of the Past 25 Years

It could have been more than ten…

By Chris Haak

06.12.2007

These are in no particular order -

Eagle Premier (1998-1992)/Dodge Monaco (1990-1992)


The Eagle Premier and its rebadged cousin the Dodge Monaco were developed by AMC and Renault prior to AMC’s purchase by Chrysler Corporation. It was a full size, FWD sedan styled by Giorgetto Giugiaro. The cars were unusual in that they had a longitudinal engine layout, which was later carried over to their successors, the Chrysler LH cars. The Premier was developed by AMC and Renault, was renamed “Eagle” following the merger, and launched shortly afterward. From all accounts, the cars were well-engineered and somewhat ahead of their time (more so than other contemporary Chrysler products), but they were prone to electrical problems and transmission issues. More importantly, they were sales duds – after selling over 40,000 units in the first two years, sales dropped off precipitously to a third of that, necessitating the re-badge called the Dodge Monaco. Combined, these two models topped out at 24,000 units in their best year together, and they were dropped in 1992. I can’t STAND their styling, either; they look like overgrown Renault Alliances. Like they were styled by a T-square only. These AMC relics did, however, eventually lead to the well-received cab-forward Chrysler LH cars of the early 1990s.

Dodge Shadow/Plymouth Sundance (1987-1994)

These were Chrysler’s compact cars immediately prior to the Neon. Like so many 1980s Chrysler products, they were a derivative of the K-car platform. They were cheap transportation (though more expensive than the Omni/Horizon that they ostensibly replaced). Chrysler kept churning these things out for years even though they lost money on them, just to help their CAFE numbers (sound familiar?) Toward the end of their life cycle, they were infused with a 3.0 liter Mitsubishi-sourced V6, but the cars were not mourned when the new “cab-forward” Neon hit the streets…

Dodge/Plymouth Neon (1995-1999)


Who can forget the cute “Hi” advertising campaign that introduced the world to the Neon? The car promised more space inside than its competitors thanks to its cab forward architecture. It also had a more powerful engine lineup than nearly all of its contemporaries did, and had a successful early career in SCCA Solo Autocross. Unfortunately, cost cutting led to issues such as frequent head gasket failures (remedied in later first-gen models) and peeling paint in certain colored cars (who hasn’t seen a purple Neon with bare metal spots on the hood?) My dad (a used car dealer) has bought a handful of Neons over the years, and probably more than half of them have broken down on their way to the auction to sell. There were also very odd design compromises, such as rear windows that were hand-cranked even if the front windows were power, and frameless windows. The 2000 model introduced the second generation and improved refinement of the model, and is not as worthy of pointing at and laughing.

Plymouth Acclaim/Dodge Spirit/Chrysler LeBaron (1989-1995)


This trio of boxes on wheels was Chrysler Corp’s midsize sedan offering of the early 1990s. While the rest of the world was moving to an aero look thanks to the Ford Taurus and Asian competition, Chrysler decided to go with a neo-Volvo look. The cars weren’t ugly, but they weren’t design leaders, either. Nor were they the engineering benchmarks of their day, as they rode on yet another K-car derivative platform (a full eight years after the first K-cars hit the streets). While the exterior theme was one of tasteful, if bland, rounded boxiness, the instrument panel’s theme was just boxiness. My aunt used to work for Chrysler Corporation in the early 1990s, and she once visited us in a rental Dodge Spirit. When we checked out her car, she said that the buzz around the company was that they were intended as an E-class Mercedes competitor. Mmm hmm. At least the cars that replaced them were better. The only car in this group that gets a pass is the Spirit R/T, which had a 224-horsepower, turbocharged/intercooled four banger that kicked ass and took names.

Jeep Commander (2006-present)


The Jeep Commander is a half-assed attempt at a larger Jeep to compete with the (then) successful Hummer H2. Jeep was concerned that many of its competitors offered larger vehicles and would-be Jeep buyers would end up buying a competitive product instead. History is littered with management who tried to run with the cheapest way around a problem, and DCX management decided to rebody a Grand Cherokee, keeping the same wheelbase and optional powertrains, but with a larger, boxier body. The marketing message that buyers were supposed to get was that the Commander captured the style of the much-loved 1984-2001 Jeep Cherokee; the message that they got instead was that it looked like a caricature of that vehicle. Others called it the box that the Grand Cherokee came in. The result was an overstyled joke that was too big to handle itself as nimbly as a Grand Cherokee, and too small inside (particularly in the third row) to be a credible competitor to vehicles like the Pathfinder SE Off Road, Hummer H2, Chevy Tahoe, Ford Expedition, etc. It also suffers from the unimaginative Chrysler interiors of the mid-2000s with plenty of right angles and not enough quality materials. The Commander isn’t going to see a second generation.

Dodge Aries/Plymouth Reliant (1981-1989)

Ahh yes, the venerable K-cars. These suckers (laughably) may have saved Chrysler from bankruptcy in the early 1980s (thanks to their small exteriors, six-passenger interiors, and fuel efficient engines). Their platform eventually spawned nearly every front wheel drive Chrysler, Dodge, and Plymouth developed during the 1980s, including the minivans. That would be fine if it was a well-engineered starting point, but the K platform wasn’t state of the art and was the victim of cost cutting. It was also engineered to be lightweight for fuel economy reasons, and in a cheap car, lightweight does not mean exotic materials, it means thinner materials and de-contenting. Like the later Neon, these cars had head gasket problems with the ubiquitous 2.2 liter fours, and Chrysler’s attempt at marketing a Japanese engine in them (supplied by Mitsubishi as a 2.6 liter) backfired because those engines blew themselves up. They did sell more than a million units of these cars in a single (long) generation, but it’s a safe bet there weren’t a million happy owners. Oh, BTW, these cream puffs were the Motor Trend Car of the Year in 1981. These cars are also immortalized in song by the Barenaked Ladies in “If I Had a Million Dollars” with the line, “…I’d buy you a K-car, a nice Reliant automobile…” Funny, but somehow simultaneously repulsive.

Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon (1978-1990)


Yes – another MT COTY winner (1978!) These small cars were the first front wheel drive offerings by Chrysler Corporation designed to compete with the successful Volkswagen Rabbit. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right? Because they look eerily similar to a Wabbit, and in fact early models even had VW-sourced engines under their hoods. The cars initially were poor handlers, so much so that Consumer Reports (yeah, I know…) rated it “not acceptable” because of the difficulty in handling the car in an emergency scenario. Toward the end of the car’s life, when it was about to be replaced by the larger and more expensive Shadow/Sundance, Chrysler standardized some optional equipment and called them “Omni USA” and “Horizon USA,” sales perked up to the extent that they were allowed to soldier on for a few more years. Whether this was a wise long-term decision is questionable. I remember riding in a friend’s Horizon in high school. The only thing I liked about it was that I didn’t have to ride the bus to go home.

Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volaré (1976-1980)


These cars were considered compacts at their launch, but times changed so much during their lifespan that they were considered midsize at the end. The lineup consisted of a coupe, sedan, and wagon. My favorite part about these cars is that Lee Iacocca admitted in his self-named autobiography that the cars were rushed to market, and first year customers were basically the last round of quality control. I’ll let you see it in his own words (page 169):

But the Aspen and Volaré simply weren’t well made. The engines would stall when you stepped on the gas. The brakes would fail. The hoods would fly open. Customers complained, and more than three and a half million cars were brought back to the dealers for free repairs–free to the customer, that is. Chrysler had to foot the bill.But then even cars that were mechanically sound started rusting. The Volaré’s rusted fender program cost us $109 million–in 1980, when we could ill afford it. The fenders had rusted through because somebody wasn’t paying enough attention to the process of rustproofing them. We weren’t asked to recall them, but we had an obligation to our customers to fix them. Even thoughwe stood behind them, the resale value of these cars plummeted, which hurt Chrysler’s image badly.

The results were predictably disastrous; as Iacocca alluded to above, Chrysler was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, with its only hope for survival resting on loan guarantees from the federal government and keeping their fingers crossed for the K-car’s success. (Also, as a side note, two pages after his Volaré description, Iacocca talks about the sales banks of the late 1970s and early 1980s that sound strangely similar to the ones they had last year.)

My roommate in college had well-to-do parents, but for some reason, he drove a 1978 Volaré wagon, cream colored, with vinyl seats, slant six, automatic, and AM radio with a separate FM converter. I remember one night during an ice storm, I was all cozy in my dorm room watching TV, and he called me from a pay phone outside a grocery story 15 miles away and wanted me to pick him up because his Volaré stopped running. I had to borrow another friend’s car in an ice storm just because his 17 year old Volaré was a POS. I drove it twice that I can remember, and the only thing I remember, aside from a serious lack of horsepower, was that the rear brakes were extremely prone to premature lockup.

Chrysler Sebring (2007-present)

This car is not a bad car – for 1999 – but considering what the competition continues to roll out (Hyundai, Honda, Toyota, FoMoCo, GM, Kia, etc.) – it’s an unacceptable effort. Chrysler managers have admitted as much, as evidenced by a leaked memo expressing disappointment in the recent Sebring and Dodge Nitro projects (they might as well include the Jeep Compass in that list as well). The Sebring is a car that sounds pretty good on paper – powerful optional V6, six speed automatic, innovative interior features like heating/cooling cupholders, hard disk music storage, Bluetooth, etc. – all at a reasonable price. But the problem is, those features need to be integrated into an attractive package, which is where the Sebring falls flat on its face. Similar to the Jeep Commander in that it’s a caricature of all recent Chrysler division styling cues, it combines the Crossfire’s hood, the 300′s gun slit windows, and a too-stubby trunk. The result is a chrome plated turd. Even worse, reviewers have called the interior materials “cheap.” Perhaps one problem is that Chrysler admitted benchmarking only domestic models (apparently previous generation ones like the Taurus, Impala, and Malibu) that already were not the head of the class. The car’s handling has also been described as “geriatric.” Time to raise the bar, Chrysler.

Dodge Daytona (1984-1993)

This car is what happens when you try to turn the K-car platform into a sporty car. It had the looks (especially for 1984), but had no balls; the base engine was 93 horsepower and the optional engine in the first year was a more respectable 142 horsepower. The Daytona was restyled twice during its front wheel drive lifespan; its original style was a “tribute” to the 1983 Chevy Camaro. The first restyle added hidden headlamps, and if you really squinted hard, looked almost kind of like its namesake 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona (the one that chewed up its NASCAR competition, looks like a Plymouth Super Bee, but is more rare). The last restyle softened some of the hard angles and eliminated the popup headlamps. There is one exception to my panning of this car – the rare 1992 and 1993 Daytona R/Ts with the Spirit R/T’s 224 horsepower turbo/intercooled four. This engine’s heads were developed by Lotus, and it’s the highest horsepower per liter of any engine Chrysler has ever sold to the public. It was the heart of a lion in a body and chassis straight out of the early 80s.There were a few honorable mentions, but I’m getting lazy, so they only get listed:

Dodge Mirada (1980-1982): Batmobile wannabes
Chrysler Cordoba (1975-1983): Chevy Monte Carlo clone, but with “rich Corinthian leather”
Chrysler Aspen (2007-present): who exactly asked for these, other than Chrysler dealers?
Dodge Ram (1972-1993): must have been good to stay in production for 21 years, right? As Brendan Moore says, “Dramatically underpowered in base form, wallowing handling, poor interior layout, ugly exterior, terrible brakes, rust-prone everywhere but especially the bed and the fenders, electrical problems, and the list goes on. The toughest part of ‘Ram Tough’ with these trucks was the ownership experience”

Did I miss any? Did I wrongly throw any good cars under the bus? Any closet Volaré fans? (Doug, if you’re out there, sorry I made fun of your wagon. I know it will be in your museum someday.)

Coming next: The Ten Best Chrysler Vehicles of the Past 25 Years. Stay tuned.

Correction: The following errors in this article were noted after publication by one of our sharp-eyed readers: 1) The Plymouth counterpart to the Dodge Charger Daytona was the Suberbird – not the Super Bee. 2) The low priced Shadow/Sundance and Omni/Horizon models were not named “USA”, but were called the “America” package. 3) The 224 hp Dodge Daytona was not called the Daytona R/T, rather it was the Dodge Daytona IROC R/T. We apologize for the naming errors and wish to thank our alert reader for bringing those errors to our attention.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 10 }

Report: GM- Delphi-UAW Deal Near

By Chris Haak

06.14.2007

The Detroit News reported today that a deal may be near in the long-running GM-Delphi-UAW love triangle. Delphi is currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and has said that it needs to significantly lower its labor costs to remain a viable entity. The UAW has said that if Delphi gets a court order to void the current labor contracts, it will strike Delphi, and without Delphi parts, GM would not be able to continue production (Delphi was spun off from GM in the 1990s and is still GM’s largest parts supplier). Given GM’s precarious financial position, a Delphi strike would be disastrous, which is why GM is willing to help pay any settlement to the UAW to allow Delphi to turn the page and exit bankruptcy protection.

If the “people familiar with the talks” are correct, the general proposal likely to be agreed upon is for GM to provide a cash payment to remaining Delphi workers (20,000 or so already took voluntary packages in the past several months to leave the company). In exchange for this lump sum, the union would agree to lower hourly wages, which Delphi could presumably afford to pay going forward. The hourly rate after reduction would be somewhere between $14-18 per hour (on par with what temporary auto/parts workers earn), and workers would also be given the choice of accepting a buyout, or returning to the GM as employees.

The amount of the lump sum payments to individual employees is not clear, but GM has already reserved $7 billion for a Delphi bailout, so it will likely be a pretty significant sum per employee. Yahoo Finance shows Delphi having a global headcount of 171,400, but the company’s US headcount is not clear (their most recent 10K filing shows 21,300 unionized hourly workers).

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 1 }

The “Design Within Reach” Airstream

Goes perfectly with a snazzy rayon shirt and a martini…

By Brendan Moore

06.13.2007

Since my wife does interior architecture and design, we get a lot of design magazines, which I don’t pay much attention too, generally. I like cars, she likes buildings and the stuff that goes in them.

However, the other day she showed me an Airsteam trailer that has to be one of the coolest-looking things you can tow behind a car that I’ve ever seen. It’s not one of the big Airstreams, but, man does it have style! And you can take a look at it on the website of Design Within Reach, a San Francisco-based design company that specializes in Modernist design.

I don’t know the design details of all the various items in the trailer, but the overall effect is one of visual continuity and space efficiency. I love this thing. It is a stainless-steel beauty. The photos on the website are not as good as the ones in the catalogue, because the photos are not large enough, but it’s worth checking out. The photos on DWR’s site are located here.

At $49,066 USD, I don’t know how many takers Airstream is going to have for the DWR model, but its got retro-chic oozing from every rivet, and from an auto enthusiast’s perspective, it would certainly be the perfect complement to your classic 50’s or 60’s car.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 1 }

Searching For an Alternative

There will always be an England…

By Bruce McCulloch

06.12.2007

The 1960’s and the 1970’s were quite simply a wondrous time for enthusiasts. Especially for those who were looking for a classic British drop-top and in light of such, MG, Austin-Healey, Triumph and others offered vehicles which sated those sports car addictions.

The problem is, very few current British manufacturers have been able to succeed at creating anything with a similar philosophy, or additionally, the impact of those great originals. Let’s be honest, if you’re looking for any sports car that is truly British, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. Even the all-encompassing Aston Martin isn’t a real ‘Brit’ anymore, neither is Rolls Royce, nor Bentley and if you’re absolutely determined to find something all-English, you’ll end up with TVR, who happens to make some of the most unreliable vehicles on the earth (and who also happen to be going down the toilet). The Morgan, of course, is an English motoring icon, but many of its components come from somewhere else at this point. The Morgan certainly qualifies as maintaining the intent of the British sportscar, but it was in a sparsely-populated category of just a few cars until recently.

Anyhow, you’re taking on a Herculean task at finding a real British sports-car these days, but that doesn’t mean you won’t find some others, like the Morgan, that at least genuinely invoke the true spirit of the British sports-car.

With that segue, I bring you the brand-new ‘Invicta S1’ – a car which just might fill the appetite of any true British sports car enthusiast. The first question might be, how so? Well, resurrecting an old brand is always a interesting (and sometimes effective) way to bring the customers in and as Canadian-born Tony Stelliga resurrected Marcos; wealthy businessman Malcolm Bristow has invested his own money into ‘Invicta’ hoping to recreate the glory days of a company which went bankrupt in 1933.

The original origins of this company hark back to 1925, when Sir Noel Campbell Macklin (a British racing driving hero among other things) decided he wanted to create a vehicle which would not only encompass the history of the British, but also a vehicle which would match the best of them from America. With that in mind, and with the able assistance of his sister-in-law, Miss Violet Cordery, Sir Macklin was able to push Invicta to many glorious achievements. With Cordery at the helm (who was a talented driver herself) of a 3-litre Invicta racecar, the Invicta was able to break a total of four world records and thirty-three Italian racing records at Monza (for their respective category).

With that being noted, you would expect the newly released ‘S1’ to carry the tradition of the brand’s heritage and I honestly think they’ve done a splendid job at doing so.

Bristow explains he was always a fan of the marque and its stylish S-Type sports racer and in order to recreate the glory days, he wants the ‘new’ Invicta to live up to their original slogan: “The Most Wonderful Performance in the World”.

In order to do so, Bristow knew he needed a car which would not only serve it’s purpose as a performance vehicle, but also as a grand tourer – something which would truly live up to the 4.5 litre ‘Tourer’ of 1928. With that, the requirements for a GT (especially an Invicta model) demanded good visibility, good ergonomics; a large trunk, a large fuel tank, as well as ground-breaking technological features which enhance its performance. The Invicta rebirth project officially started in the mid 2000’s, and by the time late 2006 arrived they had completed a vehicle which they believed was worthy of the original name plate.

For starters, the S1’s designer (Leigh Adams) was asked to reach back into Invicta’s heritage and style a car with timeless lines and classic cues, but of course – easier said than done. Without a doubt, the S1’s design provokes mixed reactions. Some love it and some don’t, but for the record – I reckon it looks pretty damn excellent.

I’m not sure what the majority of car enthusiasts will relate it to, but British car magazine EVO was quoted as saying it looked like “a melted Aston Martin”. Without a doubt I can see what they’re talking about. The whole vehicle seems quite reminiscent of the ’99 Aston Martin Vantage 600. From a rear-end point of view, there’s most certainly a degree of current-generation Maserati coupe, and, did you happen to notice that the tail-lamps come directly from the last-generation Volkswagen Passat?


The interior is yet another styling aspect of this car which will invoke different reactions. Evident is the attempt at recreating the ‘classic British GT’, but what is also noticeable is the use of the outsourced Ford air vents which grace the centre console. Nonetheless, it’s got everything you need (and probably want) in a GT car. Items such as a: heated front and rear window screen, electric windows, Recaro seats with electrical operation and heating, SatNav and Radio/CD are all standard on the S1.

One thing that’s guaranteed to deceive automotive enthusiasts who haven’t seen the Invicta in person is the sheer size of this vehicle. In photos it all looks rather normal – rather Porsche 911-sized. However, it isn’t. The side-to-side size of the car is just huge. Just as an example, due to the enormous width of the S1, Invicta can easily modify the rear bulkhead for an extra two seats for customers who wish to travel four-up.

When I say “enormous width”, just how enormous is it, you might ask? For comparison, the Invicta is a few inches shorter than a Porsche 997 Carrera S in terms of length, but at 84.0 inches wide across the back, the Invicta is not only wider than most other cars on the market, but also wider than most cars, period. A 997 Carrera is a mere 71.2 inches wide, a Porsche Carrera GT is 75.6 inches in width and even the Lamborghini Murcielago (which is considered among the widest of roadcars at 80.4 inches) is easily covered by the massive rump of the Invicta. This could be Sir Mix-a-Lot’s favourite ride.

Now, as I mentioned in a previous article, I feel that one of the major reasons for the various bad things that have been happening with TVR is the philosophy of keeping them ‘all-Britannia’ (i.e., no outsourcing). With that criticism in mind, I am glad to see that Bristow has done much outsourcing, but unlike some of the others in this segment, not for the sole reason of saving every penny. The outsourcing contracts which have occurred have all been given to companies which high credibility and well known quality, and have not been awarded on a “low-bid” basis. For instance, the gorgeous 5-spoke alloys have been outsourced by an Italian company by the name of ‘APP’ – this well respected firm also makes the alloys on the Pagani Zonda F (a mid-engine, 600bhp Italian exotic). Meanwhile, the big braking system has been outsourced from well known ‘AP’, who has customers like Aston Martin, etc.

The determination to bring only high quality to Invicta’s customers is further evident to the discerning observer as the entire body of this vehicle is made from carbon fibre and consists of an inner and an outer moulding; meanwhile, the floor pan and under tray combined with the bulkheads have all been built as a single massive component. The carbon fibre itself has been bonded to a steel space frame chassis consisting of 40mm square section steel tubing; including a tubular steel roll cage which allows a complete chassis weight of only 160kg. The entire production process ensures the chassis has super rigidity and light construction. In fact, Invicta boasts (and rightly so) that the British government stated that the S1 has the strongest chassis they’ve ever tested.

With that being noted, Invicta says the S1 is a super-lightweight GT. Still, at 1,380kg it isn’t exactly all that lightweight. On the positive side, it’s a good 40kg lighter than a Porsche 997 Carrera S, but sadly a massive 140kg heavier than a Wiesmann GT, another specialty sports car manufacturer.

This leads us to the next important aspects of the Invicta, the performance. For starters, there are three different models which one can purchase – the ‘S1-320’, the ‘S1-420’ and the ‘S1-600’. One thing that is guaranteed for all three is that you’ll be getting the same 4.6 litre V8 you find in the Ford Mustang. Such an engine was chosen as it boasts good reliability, excellent parts availability, it is just about burst-proof and you have the possibility of various tuning levels. The base model, (the ‘S1-320’) gets you exactly what the name suggests – 320bhp and backing that up is a hardy 300lb-ft of torque, all available down low if you want it, like most American V8 engines. With such power combined with its low kerbweight, Invicta claims 0-60 in just 5.0 seconds dead and with that, there’s no doubt this car will have no problem fighting off something along the lines of an Aston Martin V8 Vantage. If one feels such power to be insufficient, the doughty ‘S1-420’ and ‘S1-600’ have the added advantage of a supercharger and in turn, turn out 420bhp and 600bhp respectively – with the latter running 60 mph in just 3.8 seconds.


So, yes, this car sounds marvellously engineered; and very fast, but is it like a lot of specialty cars that require the driver to be a contortionist? Well, according to Sports Car International magazine, quite the opposite, except for some small positioning problems. Apparently, ingress to the S1 is just as easy as any other car; although unfortunately they felt the pedals were set up for drivers with extremely small feet (hey, just like the British cars of the Sixties!) and the fact that the super-wide transmission tunnel forces the driver to sit just a bit canted to the side detracts a bit from the driving experience. On another downside they felt the gas and the brake pedal are a little closely coupled together. This is definitely sounding more like a British sports car from the past, eh?

On the road though, they thought the S1 felt solid and extremely strong and even though they thought the width was intimidating, they were quoted as saying the handling was superb; the nose goes were you want and regardless of being power assisted, the steering feel was great and accurately weighted. They also praised the chassis which they thought was quite compliant and didn’t jiggle over bumps. All in all, when you’re driving quickly, it helps to have a car underneath you that was obviously built to be a confidence-inspiring GT car.

Aside from a few ergonomics issues it’s clear that the S1 is an alluring all-purpose coupe in standard fitment, and as stated before, if you want a bespoke 2+2, none of the attraction goes away. My biggest issue with the S1 is the MSRP (tax included) which starts at a whopping £106,000 for the S1-320 and £150,000 for the S1-600. Nonetheless, I think it’s an enticing car worthy of attention, particularly if want stunning performance that is coupled with a unique name and appearance.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 3 }

Fiat Tells Ford No Thanks to Land Rover and Jaguar Purchase

By Brendan Moore

06.11.2007

European newspapers are reporting this morning that Fiat tried to buy Land Rover and Jaguar from Ford, but an agreement regarding the proposed sale could not be reached. At least part of the reason for reluctance on Fiat’s part was potential damage to their improving long-term credit rating. Neither Ford nor Fiat would comment on the sale reports.

Fiat may still come back to the deal – it is thought that Fiat is interested in the Land Rover Group because of their strong SUV lineup and their U.S. dealer network. Fiat could use the dealer network to re-launch the Alfa Romeo brand in the U.S. Their interest in Jaguar is for the Jaguar RWD platform and the excellent V6 and V8 engines.

Ford has retained investment bankers to facilitate the sale of their luxury PAG group and is thought to be actively shopping all three brands in the PAG group – Volvo, Jaguar, and Land Rover. Rumors of BMW buying Volvo were rampant last week, but came to nothing. Still, Ford’s financial situation is not getting any better, so a sale of one or all of the three brands seems to be in the cards.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 3 }

Is Saturn Really a Success Story?

By Chris Haak

06.10.2007

When GM sends out their press release each month with the prior month’s sales results, they (like other automakers) try to spin the positive and downplay the negative (“our sales were down 12%, but we’re working toward reducing fleet sales,” etc.). For example, here’s the most recent one:

“The product renaissance at Saturn continued to accelerate with total sales increasing almost 69 percent compared with a year ago, highlighting the tremendous public acceptance of the new lineup of Saturn vehicles including SKY, AURA and AURA Hybrid, OUTLOOK, VUE and VUE Hybrid. Saturn’s ION small car is soon to be replaced with the popular ASTRA. Saturn is the fastest growing brand in the industry this year.”

According to Automotive News, Saturn’s sales are up 75.3% in May 2007 compared to May 2006 (must be a different way of counting, versus the press release). Year to date through the first five months of 2007, sales are up 30.5%. Sounds good, right?

Well, before we declare victory too early, let’s look at what makes up those numbers. The lineup in May 2006 was:

Ion
Sky
Relay
Vue

The lineup in May 2007 is:

Aura
Ion
Sky
Relay
Vue
Outlook

Granted, the Relay is on its way out the door (don’t let it hit you in the ass on your way out), but its insignificant sales in May 2007 (235 units) is not far from its slightly less-insignificant sales in May 2006 (460 units) as the model is phased out and replaced by the Outlook. Also, Saturn’s website still promotes the Relay, so I consider it a legitimate member of the May 2007 lineup.

So, the number of vehicles in the lineup went from four to six – or an increase of (ahem) 67%, or about the same percentage that Saturn’s sales went up in May 2007. When you look at each model’s individual sales, however, it shows that most of the sales increase is coming from the newly launched models and not from the old stalwarts.

Ion and Relay sales are down (but those two models are on the way out later this year) and Sky sales are way up YTD – but the Sky was barely available in the early part of 2006 as its production ramped up. For the Sky, we’re comparing an established model to its launch period.

The Aura was not sold in May 2006, nor was the Outlook, but after Aura sales began in August 2006, sales (excluding the first two months) have been about 4,500 sales per month, give or take a few hundred. There’s no sign that the Aura will suddenly sell at Camry, or even Malibu volumes.

Vue sales look great YTD and for May, but May was the first month of wide availability of the new model…as of April, the figures told a different story, when Vue sales were down for the month and YTD.

Basically, we’re in the absolute sweetest part of Saturn’s lineup life cycle (the upcoming Astra will only sell about 30,000 units per year maximum, less than the Ion’s worst year, because GM can only afford to lose enough money on the Astra to sell that many with their plan to import cars from Europe in the current weak dollar environment). It won’t get any better from here, folks, without increasing incentive spending, increasing the marketing budget, and continually improving the models they have now. They’re not going to go from six to ten models in May 2008 (in fact, next year at this time, the Ion and Relay will be mostly a bad memories), so the lineup will be five models. The Vue, Outlook, Aura, and Sky will be a year older, and the Aura’s sales have already leveled off months ago. We won’t be seeing near triple-digit sales increases; in fact, I predict that Saturn’s sales will be nearly flat in May 2008, especially as internal competition from the new 2008 Chevy Malibu starts biting into Aura sales. Outlook sales may continue to improve, but the Astra won’t reach Ion sales volumes.

Still, launching new models and increasing sales is the name of the game, right? Well, Saturn has sold almost 104,000 vehicles through 5/12ths of 2007, in spite of a 75% sales increase this year, but those seven models combined don’t make as many sales as the following individual model cars: Chevy Impala, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry, and Toyota Corolla. Even Kia (with a similar truck-free lineup, but more focused on higher volume smaller cars) outsold Saturn!

So, while Saturn is doing what it should in expanding its lineup, sales increases through lineup expansion can only go so far. Next comes the hard part of building those models’ sales figures without adding more products. It is possible – Saturn’s competitors do it all the time. For now, though, being outsold by the Impala or Kia does not make what I’d call a successful brand, nor the savior of GM. They need to keep plugging away if they even want to beat little Kia and redouble their efforts after that if they plan to start throwing victory parties.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 3 }

How Many Camrys Can Toyota Sell?

By Michael Karesh

06.10.2007

Supposedly the vehicle market has been fragmenting, with more models for sale each year. Sedan sales have been steadily declining as people switch to an increasingly broad variety other, more multi-functional vehicle types. And there are more brands to choose from than in decades past. Put it all together, and the days when anyone could sell more than a half-million of a single car model in the U.S. would seem over. Even a quarter-million, roughly the output of a single assembly plant, has been hard to achieve.

So I was shocked to learn that Toyota sold over 50,000 Camrys in May. Sure, some of these were the Solara coupe, but not many. I was aware that Toyota was selling over 400,000 Camrys a year. But maintain the May pace and we’re talking 600,000 cars per year, nearly all of them sedans. Even assuming that May was unusually strong, it seems likely that Camry sales will clear the half-million mark this year. This just isn’t supposed to be possible.

To put the 50,000 per month figure in perspective, Hyundai sold a total of 43,885 vehicles in May, and automotive press darling Mazda sold just 26,788. Toyota sold nearly twice as many Camrys as Mazda sold vehicles in aggregate. Mazda’s competing Mazda6, available as a hatch and wagon as well as a sedan, didn’t even do one-tenth as well as the Camry. Nor did Saturn’s much-hyped Aura. Nissan’s Altima had a strong month, but still did only half as well as the Camry. The Accord, once the best-seller, struggled to clear 30,000 for the month. Chevrolet has been doing surprisingly well with the Impala, selling over 35,000 (about half of which go to fleets). While any number over 30,000 is very strong, both the Honda and the Chevrolet remain far from 50,000.

Not so long ago GM’s chief of design suggested that the three-box sedan might be on the way out. The future seemed to lie in entirely new types of vehicles like the then-new Chevrolet Avalanche and Pontiac Aztek. It seems he spoke too soon.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Michael Karesh is the editor and owner of TrueDelta.com available at http://www.truedelta.com. TrueDelta is an automotive research company.

Comments { 0 }