By Bruce McCulloch

08.23.2007

Last week, an Australian publication by the name of Autocult, reported that Swedish supercar manufacturer Koenigsegg is heading into dire financial troubles. And according to Sweden’s Realtid, Koenigsegg, the company known for it’s over-the-top 240mph various “CC” models is currently 240,000 euros in debt and is desperately in search of new investors. Mind you, that debt of 240k is hardly anything compared to what Koenigsegg Automotive reportedly lost in 2006 – an eye-watering $3.6 million USD.

While company turnover actually rose slightly from $24.7 million to 24.8 million (2005 and 2006, respectively), the company claims its losing money at an unbelievable rate. The company makes the claim that it’s costing them a ridiculous $4 million dollars to produce each vehicle and the only way to offset the negative cash flow will be to increase their current yearly production of around 15 units.

For those who have followed the supercar world, this isn’t going to be much of a surprise. This company has been nothing a multitude of disasters since Day One. The company’s young and wealthy entrepreneur, Christian Von Koenigsegg (CVK), has showed every sign of being a pushy business man with little understanding of the automotive world.

Koenigsegg’s first real troubles are within its research and development program. Despite CVK’s great mass of wealth, his personal money is not enough to turn the company around. Of course, this all could have been avoided had the company not set such high production standards; I’m not sure how much of the exact number which they aimed to achieve, but if they were expecting 50+ units per year, they were as high as a kite on a windy day.

Tis true, today’s market gives most any company the chance to indulge themselves in success, but nevertheless, in limited quantities. This is where comparable companies such as Spyker Automotive and Pagani Automobili are in a much better position; Spyker is having much success selling some 100+ vehicles per year with the latter selling some 15 vehicles per year. The difference here is that these companies have backed up their costing development by properly estimating annual production and having a sufficient amount of back-up funds (investors included).

For instance, Pagani Automobili (producer of the “Zonda” supercar) is absolutely thriving at the volume of business they have currently, and is planning to release a track day-inspired Zonda at the upcoming Frankfurt Autoshow in Germany. One of the main reasons why Pagani is such a successful company for its size is because of the company with which it’s affiliated with, “Modena Design”. Modena design, set up in 1988, is an industry supplier that offers a numbers of carbon fibre applications and designers to those who desire same; this arrangement thus allows Horacio Pagani and his supercar to make up for any possible losses in profit. It’s an excellent quid pro quo which can only leave Pagani successful. What also contributes to their overall financial health is when Horacio Pagani and affiliated dip their hands into a number of other projects including the design of a boat and even a Hi-FI stereo system. Yes, its not auto-related, but this type of product planning is not only complimenting his brand by establishing new high-end name items to the company, but linking him with a number of investors and ultimately helping him create a upscale image and upscale brand image for the company.

Entrepreneur and tuner-car-extraordinaire, Steve Saleen, also runs on this general (and rather logical) concept. The extreme success and backing which his former tuning company is known for has helped to offset any possible losses in income; however, unlike the Swedish manufacturer, Saleen generally planned his future (production limits, etc) on reasonable expectations. This approach was instrumental in Saleen commanding a premium price when he sold the majority ownership of his company to an outside firm. He is now involved with both a company that will import Chinese pickups and SUVs into the States, as well as another, brand-new company that will build high-performance vehicles in the U.S. Suffice to say, both Horacio Pagani and Steve Saleen have, or, have had, companies which are thriving because they were set up properly. Over years of business, the two manufacturer companies (Modena Design and Saleen) were not only able to establish reasonable profit but bring a whole crop of investors. One can strongly doubt whether Koenigsegg ever had any real investors; perhaps he thought he could compensate with his own check book if they ever came across financial troubles like this?

What’s also might be worth mentioning is Koenigsegg’s ever-declining image thanks to the poor performance and awful reliability of its cars. When his 655bhp CC8S supercar was released in 2002, CVK claimed it would immediately be the world’s fastest car. He claimed that it would easily achieve zero-to-sixty mph in just 3.0 seconds and take the top speed world speed title from the almighty McLaren F1. Truth is, each and every model has consistently failed to achieve their claims. The initial model, which claimed such bombastic figures, pulled up a zero-to-sixty figure of 4.4 seconds and a zero-to-one hundred figure of 8.0 seconds by the British publication AutoCar; a far cry from what was expected from a horsepower-to-weight ratio like it has. Nor did the first model (coined the “CC8S”) ever achieve its claimed top speed of 245 mph. Instead, it took Koenigsegg a few years later with an insane 200+bhp increase to achieve a top speed of just 241 mph. A full one mph faster than the McLaren F1.

Performance inconsistency (and failure), even with the 800+bhp CCR, has continued with its various performance figures from the track to its straight line acceleration.

Furthermore, Koenigsegg’s vehicles have gained a deserved reputation for being amongst the most unreliable supercars on the market. Just about every one which was sent to journalists around the world has failed and in every way imaginable too; from engine failures to overheating. Even the loyal owners of Koenigsegg cars have showed much concern about the vehicle’s unpredictable reliability.

This to me would indicate that this vehicle was always a victim of rushed development. There’s no excuse for such poor reliability, especially when companies like Pagani Automobili are not suffering from it; they are keeping their image clean and their customers happy.

As if over-promising on performance and unreliability issues weren’t enough, Koenigseggs have also gained a reputation for being un-drivable and uncontrollable near their limits with many owners and journalists pileing them into walls with unsettling frequency.

Whether any of these attributes are actually affecting Koenigsegg sales is up for debate. I think most would agree though, it certainly can’t help.

Poor Product Planning:

What makes the companies operations even worse is their product planning, or rather, the lack thereof.

The company’s first effort in 2002 was the CC8S and with 655bhp it should have been enough. It wasn’t though and for a reason unbeknownst to anyone it was deemed appropriate to introduce an updated model which they called the “CCR” benefiting from an extra 200bhp. And in 2005, the company thought it was yet again appropriate to release a car technically identical to the CCR, but in a slightly new body shell and throw a “CCX” badge on it. And in 2006, both a bio-fuelled and racing version of the CCX were released. Both of these cars were answers to questions no was asking. There was and still is no demand for either type of car. This is utterly ridiculous and obviously ill-considered marketing from a company without much clue as to what they’re doing. While I won’t deny the market can sometimes be unpredictable, it’s clear that a general lack of knowledge of market demand existed at Koenigsegg.

In the opinion of this enthusiast, this company has always been a disaster. Indeed, many supercar manufacturers in the past have fallen in the same pattern in which Koenigsegg is exhibiting, but this should not have happened to a company run by a man who is a very wealthy entrepreneur; he should have known better. It is not unreasonable to expect that a successful businessman like Koenigsegg would figure out at some point that he needed more management talent with auto experience at his company, but it seems that hasn’t happened so far. Much of this could (and should) have been forecasted; failure is prevailing thanks to cockiness.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Igor Holas

08.22.2007

Will this car get the Fiesta name?

Ford revealed today the first sketches of what will probably be the new generation of the Ford Fiesta. This concept will be shown in Frankfurt in a month, and then a US version of it will be shown in Detroit in January.

Most of the global audience needs little introduction to the car – this will become the eighth generation of Fiesta. For others the most basic explanation would be: You are looking at a new small sub-compact developed to fight the Honda Fit/Jazz, Toyota Yaris and Chevrolet Aveo/Matiz. It is a front-drive 3-door or 5-door hatch (US and Brazil will add a sedan) with torsion beam rear suspension. The underpinnings are shared with the recently revealed Mazda2; nothing revolutionary on paper. I will not go on and on about the design – I like it – you make up your own mind.

The US version will be slightly delayed compared to the EU version; it will be built in Brazil, and while the EU model will be on sale in the fall of 2008, the US version will arrive in the spring of 2009. The US version will be 90% identical to the EU version, however. Everything from the A-pillar to the back will be 100% identical, while the nose will be slightly lower and longer in US since US does not have pedestrian safety regulations and has stricter frontal crash test.

The new car will debut two new engines and a new transmission. The two new engines are a super-efficient Twin Force 1.0 liter Flex-Fuel three-cylinder delivering about 100hp. The other engine will replace the 2.0 liter four-cylinder in the ST model – it is a 1.6l Twin Force four-cylinder delivering about 200hp. Other engines in the lineup will be largely carryover from the current model.

Learn More about Ford’s Twin Force engines: HERE

The US, however might not get a taste of any of these engines, and instead make do with the less refined 1.6l ROCAM (single overhead cam) Flexi-Fuel four cylinder from Brazil. This engine has the advantage of E85 capability and it is powerful enough – 110hp., but it is unrefined and not very economical. The information about engine options from inside Ford US is now old (it is from January 2007) – so I am hopeful that someone in there got a clue and approved one of the other engines at least as an option in the US model.

Finally, the Fiesta will debut the cheapest application of Ford’s new dual-clutch automatic transmission – dubbed PowerShift. This six-speed robotic transmission promises smoother and faster shifts and improved fuel-economy; and it will come to the US.

Overall, Ford is looking to make a big splash with the new Fiesta – so big that the name itself is on the block; it seems Ford thinks the car is too radical to wear the name Fiesta – a name usually associated with sensible basic transportation. We will see what they will come up with.

UPDATE 08.23: We finally found out the official name of the concept – the Ford Verve Concept – it is a pure concept to the tune of the Jaguar C-XF Concept – the body shown will translate into a production car, but it is not a direct presentation of the actual vehicle. Proportions will be changed with higher roof line, and the front end styling will be toned down a bit, but the rear end, and the overall styling will remain. Accordingly, the interior is pure fantasy, and the name may or may not hint on the production name of the new car. We will keep you updated.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Chris Haak

08.22.2007

Yes, I know that nearly everyone who has gone to college in the past half century has shared their car (or borrowed a friend’s car) from time to time. I had the pleasure of driving a friend’s 1978 Volare wagon back in 1995, when I could have instead driven my 1992 Oldsmobile Achieva.

This is something different, though. Two companies that provide primarily urban car sharing, ZipCar and FlexCar, have started expanding their service to college campuses in recent months.

The college car sharing plans work similarly to the urban car sharing plans that these firms offer. Once enrolled in the program for a nominal annual fee (usually around $35), you reserve a car (usually a Civic or other compact car) and go to various locations (identified by the company online or via phone), swipe your card, hop into the car and drive away. Hourly rates are usually between $5 and $10, and include gasoline and a relatively large mileage allowance. For someone who lives in a city, they’re a great alternative to car ownership and all of the insurance, parking, and vandalism headaches that it can entail.

These companies have now decided to move into the next logical arena – car sharing for college students. The plans work almost identically, except the cars are picked up at locations around campus instead of in a city, and ZipCar or FlexCar contract with the school’s fleet department to perform weekly inspections, cleaning, and maintenance.

While most rental companies will not rent to individuals under age 21, and tack on sometimes-hefty surcharges for renters between age 21 and 25, FlexCar and ZipCar are allowing renters as young as 18 to borrow cars for occasional use, as long as they have two years of driving history and adequate liability insurance. The companies are also encouraging faculty and fleet departments to utilize their cars when needed rather than maintaining their own vehicles.

To me, this is a brilliant idea. Many schools do not allow freshmen or sophomores to have cars on campus – car sharing solves that. Many schools are in urban areas with limited parking – car sharing solves that because each shared car gets its own dedicated parking space.

The kinds of cars that are available may not set enthusiasts’ hearts a-flutter, but they are a nice, relatively inexpensive solution to not having “wheels” available when needed for a trip to the grocery store. I’d encourage parents of college students, and even college students themselves, to look into these services.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

The new midsize sedan benchmark has been set.

By Chris Haak

08.21.2007

Although the 2008 Accord may well be the most-leaked vehicle in recent automotive history (its interior and exterior were captured by countless spy photographers, in both disguised and undisguised forms), today Honda officially pulled the wraps off of the Accord. And wow, is it an impressive car.

At the risk of sounding like a Honda press release, I’ll begin by stating what I am not enamored with the exterior styling of the sedan – which is the model I’d buy if I was in the market for a new car. It is something of a derivative shape, and cribs some styling cues from BMW, the Acura RL, and even the Hyundai Sonata. To my eyes, it doesn’t look as bad as some of its critics are trying to portray it. I wouldn’t call it ugly, but it’s neither beautiful nor unique. It is, however, more interesting than the ho-hum styling of the current model, of which I’m an owner for the past four years. The coupe, on the other hand, has a similar-looking but entirely unique body and has a much sleeker and sportier appearance.

All Accord models have improved fuel economy, safety features, interior room, and horsepower compared to their predecessors. Engine offerings include two 2.4 liter four cylinders (177 horsepower in the base LX and LX-P sedans, 190 horsepower in the EX and EX-L sedans and LX-S and EX coupe) and a new 3.5 liter V6 (268 horsepower in the EX-L V6 sedan and coupe). Five-speed manual transmissions are standard in all four-cylinder models, and five-speed automatic transmissions are standard in all V6 models and optional in all four-cylinder models. There is also a six-speed manual available exclusively in the EX-L V6 6MT coupe. Fuel economy for the V6 has improved from 18 city/26 highway to 19 city/29 highway (by 1 mpg in the city and 3 mpg on the highway) when comparing the new for 2008 EPA ratings, in spite of the car moving from the EPA midsize to large car class, gaining 150 pounds, and 24 horsepower. That’s a 5.6% improvement in city mileage and an 11.5% improvement in highway mileage, in a bigger, more powerful car. Much of the thanks goes to Honda’s cylinder deactivation, which can run the V6 in three-, four-, or six-cylinder mode depending on need. Most likely, all six cylinders aren’t needed for steady-state highway cruising, so some of them are shut down to conserve fuel. Honda also includes Active Noise Control sound cancellation standard on all V-6 models with automatic transmission and on all 190-hp four-cylinder cars to mitigate any vibrations or noises from the four cylinders or the V6 running on three or four cylinders.

Inside, the back seat has more room (according to Honda, nearly as much legroom as the Pilot SUV) and comfort. The dash and instrument panel were redesigned to move the 8″ navigation screen up and more into the driver’s line of sight. Models without navigation have a multi-display in its place to show HVAC and audio settings. Some have criticized the new Accord’s interior as being too button-heavy, but when an interior includes all of the technology that this one does (navigation, Bluetooth, XM Satellite Radio, CD changer, dual zone climate control), it’s difficult to control everything without a button. At any rate, the buttons are logically arranged and large so that they can be operated with minimum distraction. The alternative would be excluding the technology (as GM has chosen to do with its 2008 Chevrolet Malibu) or using an iDrive-type interface as BMW, Audi, and Mercedes do (and are oft-criticized). The interior has some premium detailing absent from the old model, such as horizontal trim strips across the dash and door panels and jewel-like gauges, and Honda claims that material quality has been upgraded (and they were already pretty good in most places). Frankly, the EX-L interior reminds me very much of an Acura’s, and that’s definitely a good thing in a mainstream sedan.

Safety equipment sets the class standard. The Accord comes with six airbags and stability control, active head restraints, four wheel ABS and four wheel disc brakes, all standard.

Final pricing has not been released yet, but I expect it to be in line with the outgoing 2007 model’s pricing; that is, between $20,000 and $30,000, which isn’t bad considering the amount of safety, technology, and performance that you’re getting for the money.

Comparisons between the Accord and its midsize sedan classmates will be inevitable. Objectively, it has basically everything on paper that the class leaders have – it’s two horsepower shy of the Altima’s 270-horsepower V6, but gets the best V6 fuel economy in its class, in spite of only having a five-speed automatic – and recent Accords have been very good as space efficiency in a smaller package; I expect more of the same from this iteration.

A sidebar to the Accord’s launch is that the 2008 Chevy Malibu is put in the unenviable position of having to launch against this car. The Malibu has an optional six-speed automatic, but is down on horsepower and fuel economy (the similar 2008 Saturn Aura gets 17/26 city/highway according to the EPA, which is about 12% less). Now having seen the Malibu’s competition, and having seen GM fans already clamoring for the next generation replacement of a car that still has yet to be launched itself, the Malibu’s work is more than cut out for it. It would be difficult enough to convince loyal Honda, Toyota, and Nissan buyers to leave their comfort zone and consider a Malibu or Saturn even if those cars were clearly superior to the Accord, but when the Accord is probably already a better car, where’s the compelling reason to jump ship? This means that GM will probably have to resort to selling the Malibu on its “value” rather than its features, which is a shame. Unfortunately, the US auto market, and particularly the midsize sedan market, is extremely competitive. While the Malibu is heads and tails better than the 2004-2007 model, it might not be good enough to change peoples’ minds when the Honda Accord is also hitting dealers’ lots. I hope for GM’s sake that I’m wrong.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Read Part 1 – HERE

By Jerry Weber

08.20.2007

Part 2:

Since GM controlled the marketplace during most of the 20th century, the other manufacturers had to follow in most major ways. Therefore, the annual model change, styling, color, features, & marketing, were creations of the General and copied by the other aspiring companies. But GM was not perfect, and their mistakes gave their competitors at least an occasional, if temporary, advantage over them. For example, in 1956, the “jetaway hydramatic” automatic transmission failed constantly. It was used in the Cadillac line, and there were an awful lot of angry well-off Cadillac owners as a result of this engineering failure. In 1959, the GM styling studios went so far over the top with the Chevrolet tailfin that Ford actually passed them in sales with a much more conservative Galaxy model. However, these let-downs were the exception, not the rule and GM could mostly cruise along in the market unmolested.

It seems as time went on GM’s “little mistakes” became more prevalent, and more far-reaching. The Chevrolet Vega of the 1970’s was a far worse car than the much-maligned, but brilliantly-engineered Corvair of the 60’s. In fact the Vega was defined by many enthusiast magazines and consumers as junk. A later evolution of GM’s small car called the Chevette was somewhat better but no match for the Japanese builders.

After scoring one of their last great successes with the 1977 downsizing of their full size cars, GM was basking in their dominance of a market they liked and understood best, full sized cars. The 77-79 cars were well packaged, reliable rear-drive cars that under-girded the line from Chevy to Cadillac. Good cars like the 1979 Chevrolet Malibu and excellent cars like the 1977 Cadillac Seville were good examples of GM’s skill in this segment. And with no Japanese or German competition in this size and price category sales were assured.

Only two years later came the bomb of this era, the Oldsmobile 5.7 liter diesel V8. This was to be GM’s answer to the question of how to keep big cars in the mix while raising economy in order to weather a second oil embargo in 1979. However, the under-built, badly engineered diesel engine that had been converted on the cheap from a gasoline engine failed at alarming rates. Worse, GM used the engine in all their divisions up through Cadillac. Then in 1980 the previously scaled-down full sized cars were given an injection of steroids and looked much larger again. This did not help sales.

80′s musclecar from GM – 1983 Chevrolet Citation X-11

In 1985 GM downsized full sized cars again and this time the results went past plain and were, frankly, unattractive. The new full-sized cars were as blocks of soap carved in three boxes. The front drive unibody models were very utilitarian, but very ugly. Worse the Buick, Oldsmobile and Cadillac renditions looked almost identical. At this time Lincoln, who was only re-skinning their old frame-on-body Town Car, gave it a Rolls Royce prow and advertised that it didn’t look like a Ford or Mercury. Lincoln finally got some traction against Cadillac. After this fiasco, GM reintroduced the old frame-on-body Cadillac Broughams, Buick LeSabres, and Chevrolet Caprices. However, they kept making the front-wheel drive full-sized and smaller-sized cars as well, not seeming to know which way to turn. The Eighties were not kind to GM and in 1989 a huge financial crash led to their first major down-sizing of the company. As I commented in the first part of this series, I believe some management deadwood was indeed given the boot at GM, but along with it, many good stylists, engineers and others left, thus handicapping GM in regard for future changes it would need to get back in the game.

The most serious loss during this period of poorly-executed cut and paste was the brand identity that was Alfred Sloan’s (Al Sloan was for forty years the iron-fisted Chairman of GM) lasting imprint on GM. There was never a question as to which car you were looking at, and which of the five GM divisions the car was from, as each brand had a distinctive look and closely followed the size parameters and luxury add-ons allocated to their specific brand. The old joke was very true: A bank teller had a Chevrolet, a branch manager a Pontiac, a Jr. VP an Oldsmobile, a Senior VP a Buick and finally the president and CEO had (of course!) a Cadillac. You simply substituted brands as your position in life improved. Of course if you stayed in the same job, Sloan’s GM had the annual model changes you could count on as well as an all-new look every three years.

Don’t laugh – it worked for forty years.

But, when all the cars looked alike, GM really didn’t need 5 divisions. And now with all the brands selling less, the annual model change was pushed back to every several years, and then, even worse, with a new tight budget allowing little but grill and taillight differences between many brands. If you’re skeptical, get out the old pictures of the GM cars from the 50’s and 60’s and tell me how many parts of the exterior matched between the different brands. The divisions were always meant to compete with each other for business while cooperating behind the scenes on sharing parts and knowledge, with the new features generally showing up on the higher-priced brands first and cascading down in subsequent years. For instance when Oldsmobile got the hydramatic transmission, it was only exclusive for the first year or two and then the other divisions would begin to share it. Air conditioning (stunningly expensive at the time) started in 1953 with Cadillac and within a couple of years was offered by all five brands. When the divisions were lumped together in the Eighties and given names such as Buick-Olds-Caddy (the large-car division) there went all of the above-mentioned distinctions for cost reasons.

GM lost dominance during this period in many other different areas. They once made all sorts of things: locomotives, earthmovers, refrigerators, buses, heavy-duty trucks, tractors etc. In all of these sectors they were leaders, but the car business was the crown jewel of the empire. As they pared the empire down to the auto base, it became clear that the cars would have to be successful all of the time as GM was not as diversified as they once were. Even the captive parts plants were cut loose. It never dawned on the GM execs that if Delco can’t make money under GM tutelage and sponsorship, how were others going to run these plants profitably? But for about 10 years GM, Ford, and Chrysler were able to sell off parts plants and then drive the cost of these parts down by forcing the new ownership of these now-independent companies to keep reducing prices. This game came to an end after 2000, when one by one the parts makers declared bankruptcy, leaving GM, Ford, and Chrysler in quite a jam, and in the unenviable situation of having to rescue their old companies just to keep the parts coming for the assembly lines that were producing their cars. In other words, for the last twenty years, the Big Three have been selling off the seed corn to feed the beast. Now even GMAC is half gone and Allison transmissions too. Either the cars now make money, or there is no Plan B – at least here in the U.S.

It has been stated endlessly that at the present level of sales, GM can probably only support three car divisions and one for trucks. How to realign GM is another topic entirely, but in my opinion, it cannot update five car and two truck divisions in a timely manner to keep up with the current competitors.

Let’s take a look. Toyota, which includes Scion, has one other division Lexus (and about one-fourth the dealers), Nissan has Infiniti, and Honda has Acura. All of these companies are challenging GM for leadership and do it with a high & low division lineup and a lesser amount of strategic dealerships. Which is the second serious problem; a Buick dealer sells 8 new cars a month, a Toyota dealer over 100, and that’s average. Guess who is the best-financed and heavily-advertised in their respective towns? GM cannot grow back large enough and quickly enough to support all their divisions without severely limiting the amount of new product and advertising support each division gets from the parent company. So divisions and dealers must go to get down to fighting weight. Can this happen in time to save them? There is opinion on both sides of the aisle. Lately GM seems to have stopped the heavy losses, but are they generating the capital to keep going forward? They certainly are producing better products than in the past. Their cars and trucks win awards with magazines and auto journalists more than their other two domestic rivals. However, so far, the sales have not recovered (or stopped declining actually). What will it take for this to happen? I could collect a lot from the General if I knew.

The next short analysis will be on Ford. While many of their problems are the same, their issues come from a somewhat different background, and, it is important to note, despite a long history of competition with General Motors, Ford has never been able to wrest the sales leadership crown away from GM. It took Toyota to do that, and Toyota’s sales gains have not come exclusively from acquiring former GM or Chrysler customers only – Ford has taken a beating at the hands of the Toyota machine in the past decades. And Ford is truly in a do-or-die situation for the next 36 months, whereas both Chrysler and GM have more breathing room than that.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Top – Honda S2000; bottom – Aston Martin V8 Vantage

So, after all that, a pertinent question – Do I feel a sports car needs an interior?

Well, considering the nature of the article, I think my opinion should be rather obvious. My opinion is that a sports car – of any sort – should have a good interior; I’m not expecting a Bentley, but I’m not expecting an oxcart either. If anything I think an interior is even more important in a sports car as I’m likely to spend countless miles in the vehicle.

To this end, I believe the following sports cars and manufacturers need to work on their interiors:

Ferrari:
Particularly the flagship models

Noble:
If TVR (Yes, I realize they are at the bottom of the barrel) can assemble interiors which are interesting in a package which is no heavier, why can’t Noble?

Chevrolet Corvette:
While I cannot deny the great improvement in quality and design from the C5 generation, I think they have still got some work to do.

Dodge Viper:
See Corvette…

What may surprise you is that I do not feel Lotus needs to work in this department. Whether it’s cost-cutting or not, I cannot help but feel such is proper for the manufacturer. Mind you, that also means that I’d never consider buying an Elise or an Exige.

Now, before any of the fans of the above manufacturers burn me at the stake, it should be noted that all of the above is my personal opinion. I’m sure there are Enzo fans who wouldn’t have the car built any other way than it is. Or perhaps, those same people feel that sports cars do not necessarily need interiors. That’s all fine, I respect that. Obviously, many rhetorical questions have been asked – most of which can most likely only be answered by the companies themselves. I am merely offering some food for thought.

It’ll be interesting to see what the future years bring for some of the above companies who aren’t exactly going with the trend towards well-designed luxury interiors.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Now that the hype of Tulsa, Oklahoma’s Plymouth Belvedere, which sat in an underground (and sometimes underwater) vault for half a century, has died down, I thought I’d take a look at which 2007 model year vehicles might be good to bury for 50 years.

Now, does “good to bury” mean that they are representative of the automotive landscape in 2007, or that they’re vehicles we hate so much that our planet is better served by having at least one example underground away from human sight for 50 years? I decided on the former – the best representatives of what’s popular with consumers in 2007. You may have a different list, and I’d love to hear any other suggestions or critiques of the list I came up with. Obviously, there’s no “right” or “wrong” answer – it’s just a fun exercise. I also have no delusions like the Tulsans did in 1957 that ANY of the vehicles in my list will be in style in “2,057,” but I just want people 50 years from now to agree with some of my choices. So, let’s get into the list!

2007 Honda Odyssey
The Honda Odyssey is arguably the best minivan on the market. Although Chrysler has two new vans ready for battle in this competitive-but-shrinking segment, Honda has set the benchmark with quality, comfort, family-friendly features, and decent handling and fuel economy for a vehicle of its size. They’re also strong sellers and a strong profit driver for Honda.

2007 Chevrolet Silverado 1500
The full-size pickup truck market may be under attack from several angles – high gas prices, environmentalists, etc. – but the fact is, the two top-selling vehicles in the US are the Ford F-Series and Chevy Silverado. I was going to choose the Ford to bury, but since it’s at the end of its life cycle and the Chevy was all-new for the 2007 model year, I’ll give the nod to the Chevy. I chose a half ton because those are the most popular with personal use buyers who rarely need a pickup’s carrying capacity.

2007 Toyota Camry
The Camry is the best selling car in the US, and has been for more or less the past decade. If any car defines what the public is driving in the US in 2007, it’s the Camry. You see the darn things everywhere.

2007 Honda CR-V
The CR-V is all-new this year, and Honda came up with the right vehicle at the right time. While its competitors were shoehorning V6s into their “cute utes” (Toyota, Mitsubishi, Suzuki), Honda stuck with the four cylinder in a move that with the benefit of hindsight looks to be a master stroke. It gives much of the utility and elevated view of the road of larger SUVs with the fuel economy of a car. People love them – they’re the #1 selling SUV in the country (even though they’re not SUVs in the traditional sense).

2007 Toyota Prius
One of the founders of the “green” movement in cars, and far and away the most popular hybrid model, the Prius makes the list. I personally am tired of the way the car looks and would never drive something willingly with such an anemic powertrain, but people who have them seem to love them.

2007 GMC Acadia
The crossover segment is one of the few segments growing quickly right now – consumers really seem to take to vehicles that have much of the ground clearance, looks, and capabilities of truck-based SUVs, but with better fuel economy thanks to their unibody car-based platforms. The Acadia (along with its cousins the Saturn Outlook and Buick Enclave) are the leaders in the large crossover segment, which also can count the Honda Pilot, 2008 Toyota Highlander, and Mazda CX-9 as members. These vehicles have been well-regarded so far by the press and by customers, so the Acadia makes the list.

2007 Chevrolet Corvette
If you hopped into a time machine in 1968 and showed the owner of a new Corvette a photo of a 2007 Corvette, I bet they’d be able to figure out what it was you’re showing them. The C6 Corvette has modern, yet classic lines with nearly all of the important, classic styling cues that define a Corvette (long hood, arched fenders, gills on the front fenders, four round taillights). I may be biased (since the C6 is my favorite new car), but I believe that someone in 2057 would be as thrilled to open a vault with a pristine 2007 Corvette as they would to open a vault with a pristine 1957 Corvette today. The Corvette is an icon, and I expect it to remain one.

2007 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon
Another icon from a different era that survives, and even thrives, in 2007 is the Jeep Wrangler. Sales are up this year by huge percentages, thanks entirely to the introduction of the first four door Wrangler, called the Unlimited. The Wrangler Unlimited combines more than 90% of the two door’s capabilities with much more passenger and luggage space (and more convenient access to the rear seat).

2006 Scion xB
The Scion xB is the vehicle most identified as a Scion by the general public, and Toyota’s Scion division has gone from zero sales to a household name in just a few years, thanks to appropriately priced products, a new selling model (low prices, lots of standard equipment, and the only factory option is color and automatic or manual transmission), and Toyota’s marketing dollars/acumen. Scions are generally customized by their owners (or by a dealer at the owner’s behest), in a trend that many other manufacturers are trying to latch onto because of the healthy profit margins that accessories generate. I chose the 2006 model because there was no 2007 xB, and the 2008 is too wrong to make the list.

2007 BMW 335i Sedan
The 3-series BMW is the consummate sport sedan, and the new twin turbocharged 300 horsepower 3.0 liter I6 makes the current model the best non-M3 yet. The 3-series has also been its class benchmark for decades, and as hard as they try, the competition can’t out-BMW the 3. The steering, handling, braking, shifting, and acceleration are simply out of this world, especially for less than $40,000.

So, which of the above ten cars should be buried? Or should it be something else? Comment below!

James Bond approves.

By Chris Haak

08.17.2007

Tomorrow, Aston Martin will officially unveil its new DBS model, which was James Bond’s mode of transportation in the film Casino Royale at the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance in California. The car is the newly-independent Aston Martin’s flagship model, and is motivated by a 510 horsepower V12 (derived from Aston’s V12 racing engines in the DBR9 and DBSR9) connected to a rear-mounted traditional six-speed manual transaxle. Other performance-related features include ceramic brakes, 20 inch alloy wheels, and an exhaust bypass valve that opens in the higher RPM ranges.

The DBS is a two seat car with a bonded aluminum structure. Befitting of the Aston Martin name, it has a gorgeous exterior and exquisitely detailed interior. The interior features Semi-aniline leather and Alcantara surfaces, Matrix alloy fascia trim, Iridium Silver centre console finish, and Carbon fiber door trims and door pulls. Navigation, of course, is standard, and the map data is stored on an integrated hard disk for quick access times.

Aston Martin has built itself into an impressive aspirational luxury brand. Although production volumes are substantially larger than they have been in past years, it’s still basically a boutique company that produces beautiful, well-regarded automobiles. Without even sitting in the actual car, it’s obvious that Aston Martin has given its flagship an incredible attention to detail – look at the interior photo above.

Meanwhile, keep saving your pennies. The car is expected to cost about £160,000 (€235,000 or $317,000) when it goes on sale in early 2008.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Chris Haak

08.16.2007

Infiniti has pulled the wraps off of its new EX crossover, which slots below the current FX in both size and price. Well, actually the wraps haven’t really ever been on the EX since it was shown almost undisguised in concept form at the 2007 New York auto show.

The EX will (at least initially) come only with a 3.5 liter VQ V6, also found in the G35, and output will be “at least” 290 horsepower (a variant of this engine makes 306 horsepower in the G35 sedan).

From looking at photos of the EX, it appears to be in both concept and execution to be almost a wagon version of the G35 sedan. The front end strikes a very similar “face,” the wheels look similar, and the interior seems to have many of the same themes. It probably drives similarly to the G35 sedan, though it’s likely a little heavier and not as low to the ground. My only big complaint about the styling is that the wavy character line at the top of the doors is reminiscent of a current Hyundai Elantra. I’m sure that the EX’s designers don’t want to hear that.

Though Infiniti’s press release pretends to have trouble acknowledging competition for the EX, it does list the BMW X3 3.0si and Audi A4 3.2FSI quattro avant. I’d also add the Acura RDX, as well as small crossovers coming from Mercedes-Benz and Cadillac in the next few years.

What most impresses me about the EX in a crowded field of near-luxury crossovers are some of the unique technologies that are making their way into this vehicle right at its US launch, sometime at the end of 2007. These include paint with a “Scratch Shield” that “fixes itself” from small scratches such as fingernail scratches beneath door handles over the course of a few hours or days for the first three years of the car’s life. Another feature is called the Around View Monitor (AVM) system, which uses four small cameras to give the driver a “top down” view of the vehicle when parking. Other luxury/convenience touches that are standard or optional include all wheel drive (standard), a leather-wrapped instrument panel (standard), a power folding second row (optional), lane departure prevention system which actually prevents the EX from drifting out of its lane rather than just beeping (optional).

Infiniti has realized that if it’s going to be a player in the near-luxury small crossover segment, it needs to come to the game with the latest gadgets and luxury features that the competition is offering, and raise the stakes with new touches such as self-repairing paint and a more practical and simple parking assist system than Lexus offers in its flagship LS 460.

The press release does not mention pricing, but I’d anticipate mid-$30,000s to low $40,000s, based on the pricing of the G35x sedan.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved