Blake Noble

"So fast it will get to the fire before its even started," eh? If that's the case, I think that's because this thing would be the cause for the fire whenever it gets to wherever it's supposed to go. It's just something about the thought of one radiator being shared between two howling small-block V8s. Jeers.

Agreed. GM put way too much on its plate when it bought Saab.

I'd have to say my driving is 65 percent rural, 35 percent urban. So, yes, I drive very regularly in non-urban conditions and I still see plenty of — ahem! — educated people inappropriately using their usless little fog lamps. Agreed. I'm suprised selective yellow lenses don't have bubbles behind them.

Actually, this reminds me my local C-D-J-R dealer has been marking down fairly well loaded 200s for about $16,000 or so.

G.Noble Editor/Reporter CheersandGears.com 27th February, 2012 Fabulous Flops is a monthly series profiling some of the spectacular failures in the automotive industry. The automotive industry is by nature an innovator, but sometimes those innovative ideas are taken out of the oven before they are done cooking, others fall victim to poor timing. Today, we’re going to go after one of those rare flops where the idea was half-baked and still somehow managed to be popular. Since the dawn of the automobile, mankind has found himself thinking of new ways to brave and drive in the elements. After all, driving isn’t the easiest thing to do when it’s pouring an inch of rain every hour, the wind is blowing debris and bugs into your teeth, and the bitter winter cold has frozen your car into a popsicle. So it’s understandable that car manufacturers introduced new features over the years to combat Mother Nature. It’s why cars have roofs. It’s why cars have windshields and wipers to keep them visible. It’s why cars have heaters to keep the interior warm and defrosters to blast the windows clear when it’s a little frosty outside. While some of those features are what makes most cars so livable during the worst of what the weather has to throw at us, others haven’t made much of a difference at all. For example, many tire manufacturers advertise all season tires that will perform the same regardless of the weather. The problem is that actually means they perform terribly all year round. The worst offender, though, is probably none other than the fog light. Yes, that’s right. The fog light is the single most useless option that you can buy on a car today next to pin striping. I’m sure you must be thinking, “You’ve really lost it on this one. I have fog lights on my car and I think they were well worth the $500 and change I spent to get them.” Well, guess what? You’re wrong and you’re about to learn why. First, let’s have a little history lesson (and just to warn you, it's a snoozer). The first fog light was first introduced as an option on some late 1930's Cadillacs. Since low headlight beams from that time and years prior weren’t the brightest ever produced, they didn’t lend themselves all that well to lighting the foreground of the road very well, especially in driving situations with poor visibility such as fog. Cadillac therefore decided to fit two auxiliary lights to the front of the car that were aimed very low at the ground to augment the low beams and light the immediate foreground of the road to the driver. This would make the edges of the road immediately in front of the car easier to see. It was admirable thinking, but Cadillac’s first fog light -- as well as the subsequent designs competitors would cook up later -- were flawed designs from the get-go mainly because they were all sealed with a selective yellow lens and continued to be for years. So why a selective yellow lens? The answer to that question opens up a massive, brand new can of worms to dig through, but it all started with the French back in the early 1930s. For tactical reasons, the French government at the time thought that it might would be a good idea to be able to distinguish which cars traveling the French roadways at night were native to the country and which cars were not. They also didn’t want any required changes to diminish highway safety and sought to improve it if possible. The solution they came up with was to remove all traces of blue light from the spectrum of their car’s headlamps. The end result was a headlamp that cast an almost pure yellow light. While it is true that French motorists thought that the new yellow headlamps had less glare in poor weather conditions, it wasn’t because that particular color would naturally scatter less, for example, on the big, fat water molecules that make up roadway fog like some self-proclaimed scientific minds like to claim. No, instead it was mainly due in part to the fact that the design burned at a lower intensity rate in comparison to a light that projected mostly white light. That means the amount of light a selective yellow beam produces is up to thirty percent less than a white beam, which defeats the goal of increasing visibility. With all of this in mind it is curious that Cadillac (and ostensibly all the pursing automakers) chose a selective yellow lens and continued to use it for years. However, the answer here this time isn’t so complex. Chances are Cadillac simply wanted drivers to associate the color of a functioning fog lamp with the word “caution.” After all, drivers in America already associated yellow with that word from road signs, so tying it in with unsavory driving conditions only seemed like the logical thing to do. Once again Cadillac’s admirable thinking didn’t exactly pan out. The selective yellow lens wasn’t to last forever, though. In fact, every design feature that would constitute a fog lamp since its creation -- the lens, the diameter, the height, the width, the shape, the bulbs -- would sporadically change over the years, with a few gallant attempts at making improvements being canceled out by stupid ideas and other changes making something already terrible even worse. The yellow lens would eventually give way to clear lenses that boosted the light output back to a normal, useful standard, but when automakers made that change many fog lights were no longer big and round and instead were small bars. When fog lights finally became round again they still were too small to really work. It’s not that the old, larger diameter of vintage fog lights made any difference in their case anyway; they were incandescent … which reminds me, when the bulbs switched from incandescent to halogen ones, the increased light output only helped to increase glare. Some automotive savants these days like to swap high-intensity discharge bulbs into their fogs light socket, which only increases glare further. There’s also another problem with these damned things -- you can never find a set that’s really aimed properly. Ideally, a fog lamp should be aimed even lower than your low beams, as stated earlier, with the top of the beam cutting off directly at the bottom of the low beam. Most fogs instead can’t be aimed quite that low because of flawed bracket designs and uncooperative bumpers. This makes for fog lamps that instead are aimed to a degree too close to the low beams, making any difference unnoticeable to the driver. Some fogs are even aimed far too high, which only serves to blind other drivers. So from a design standpoint, fog lamps have been a flop from the very start and have never gained any ground in being something truly useful. Nowadays, automakers like Ford have essentially given up on making a useful design but acknowledge the fact buyers want pointless lights attached to the front of their car. The new fangled light pipe fangs on several new Ford models amount to little more than luminescent bling. Remember the opera lights on cars from the '70s and '80s? That's all these amount to in terms of function. The buck doesn’t stop with the stupid baubles automakers attach to the front of their cars either. The Europeans don't stop with just front mounted fog lights, they do it to the south end of the car as well. Although you might be concerned at first sight, don’t worry, the driver in front of you doesn’t have an electrical issue with his Audi. No, those are rear fog lights, which begs the question, “Why?” Someone in favor of the idea will say that it increases the visibility of the taillights of a car to following drivers in poor visibility. While that may be somewhat true, it can also serve to blind following drivers as well since, of course, they’re pretty much in your direct line of vision. Having these fog lights hasn't stopped any of the pileups of 50 plus cars in France. We’ve established that fog lamps are useless, poorly designed, and have absolutely no hope of becoming something useful. To add insult to injury, these things are almost always used incorrectly by almost everyone everywhere. Don’t believe me? Next time you’re out driving during a clear, calm night, try and count just how many drivers turn their fogs on for absolutely no good reason if you can. This misuse also can also lead to serious accidents. A recent study from British insurance company Swiftcover states that 300,000 claims or more last year involved someone using inappropriately turning on their fog lamps in clear conditions. That’s also not to mention that this is coming from a country where the local authorities don’t care a bit to write you a ticket for using them when you’re not supposed to, so you can only wonder what the count tallies up to here in America. Let’s just face the simple truth: we don’t need fog lamps and considering how much better basic modern automotive lighting systems are today versus what we had over eighty years ago, we probably never will. Adaptive headlights that can help you see around corners are far more likely to prevent an accident than any fog lamp will. Plus, that extra five-hundred bucks you spent to get those stupid things could’ve been better used on something else more useful for your car, like a nicer stereo, heated seats, or better engine option. If none of those things sound appealing to you, keeping that extra money in your wallet instead of throwing it away on the front of your car will only serve to keep your monthly payment down, even if it is by just a few dollars. It’s as easy as skipping over checking off that box off the next time you buy your brand-new car. Not only will you be doing yourself a favor, you’ll also help to keep the highways safer and allow this automotive flop to finally fade into history. * * * * * Do you have a nomination for a Fabulous Flop? Drop an email to [email protected] with your nomination. Make sure to share this with your friends on Facebook or Twitter using the buttons below. View full article

G. Noble Editor/Reporter CheersandGears.com 27th February, 2012 Just recently, a few computer-generated drawings of the upcoming, Geneva-bound Infiniti Emerg-E concept leaked out on the internet. When we first viewed them, we thought that the eco-friendly supercar prototype looked maybe just a little too off-putting with its excess of organic, curved lines and reserved any further comment until we could get a better look. Well, these official photographs hit the web just yesterday and, happily, the styling works out far better than we expected. The photos show a rather evocative-looking design that makes Japan’s other supercars — the Acura NSX and the Lexus LF-A — look stale and uninspired in comparison. In fact, the way the numerous curved lines of this car meet in certain angles can make you daydream dirty thoughts. The styling certainly makes this a proper exotic car then. Will it perform like one? It’s hard to say just yet. Infiniti hasn’t released any official details about the Emerg-E, other than the fact it will feature a mid-engined setup and be powered by an electric motor with a range-extending 1.2 liter gasoline engine. We should know the rest of the story at the Geneva Auto Show next month. View full article

Try $47 large, and hence another problem Almost $50,000 grand? Eh, I'm not suprised. The really wierd Renaults were always needlessly expensive.

Good luck Cort and don't let things get you down. I know you'll see things improve by the time it's all said and done. If your employer let you go for the reason TJ just said, I know I'd personally be peaking into ways to retaliate. Not suggesting, just saying.

The Acura TSX sounds like it ticks many of your boxes.

From the last bit of my post from last night: That's the key to getting more electric, battery-only cars out there.

I'll go ahead and admit that I'd rock a CrossCabriolet if I had an extra $30 large to waste. It's the closest thing we have on our shores to experiencing Renault's trademark wierdness over the last decade.

Pssstttt ... that was actually Forza 4.

Uh, yikes? No need to bare your fangs, man. I wasn’t posting that as an insult or anything, just as an observation.

Don't take this the wrong way or anything, but 18mpg out of an Intrepid? I somehow find that number hard to believe. My Challenger always averaged about 24 to 25mpg mixed and it was a heavier car with rather broad-shouldered build. With regards to the rest of your post, I'll say that I understand where Camino is coming from. Take this post for example: Camino is someone who actually uses a heavy-duty pickup for work, so see it from his perspective. A purpose-built workhorse like a Silverado or Ram 2500 truck can reliably stand up to the constant abuse of towing and hauling over any sort of terrain, be it asphalt or some rutted out washboard of a trail. Electric cars are fairly delicate devices of transport and somehow I don't think a small truck packed full of laptop batteries can withstand the same sort of punishment I just described. Could one eventually? Sure, why not. But gas-powered pickups were tough as an old pair of boots from day one. It's going to take quite a bit of effort and time to make an all-electric, battery-powered pickup match the same effort of ruggedness that its conventionally-powered counterparts offer. However, I will admit that there's one advantage an electric-pickup could have over a gas or diesel-powered one and it's that old golden egg of "max torque at zero revs." That simply won't be enough, though. What design might prove to be a good starting point then? What could power our trucks and cars of tomorrow? Well, it doesn't involve 50 tons of batteries that take the rest of your life to charge. Instead of describing it, I'll just leave you with the following video. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4AUurBnLbJw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> SPOILER ALERT: It involves hydrogen-derived electric power. I also feel the need to add that exclusively battery-powered cars like the upcoming Chevy Spark EV and the Nissan Leaf have their place in tomorrow’s automotive world. First, we must face the ugly truth about them — even with the best battery technology we have today, these things will never be an honest match for a gasoline-powered car. The range simply is far too limited and the recharging times far too long so, yes, that spells unlimited inconvenience for long-distance drivers, especially people like myself who live in a rural area and live miles away from any extended family. So what role would they play? That’s an easy question to answer. These battery-powered electric cars would be sold as city runabouts, marketed mainly to folks who live in big urban areas and their very closely-knit suburbs. People that have no idea what a country road really looks like or what a long trip or commute really feels like. With a maximum range of 100 miles, these would be cars built for people who drive to work 15 to 30 miles in one direction and only leave the house otherwise to run 10 to 20 miles to a supermarket or shopping mall. In order for these cars to secure their place in the auto world of the future, automakers should instead focus on making them much cheaper to buy than what you can today and not bothering so much with chasing the range rabbit down its big, black hole. As cars like the Honda FCX Clarity show, we already know how to make electric vehicles work, we just have to add to — not totally rebuild — our current infrastructure. It’s really that simple.

I can explain your Datsun sighting. Datsun has sold the X-Trail in Mexico continuously since 2003 and in Canada for 2005 and 2006. Your indeterminate plates probably originated from either country. I spotted another silver X-Trail in Lexington about a month or so ago with Mexican tags. It threw everyone who looked at it for a loop. Maybe it was the same Ness-ann?

Shhhhhh! Don't give them any ideas.

So Mr. Smith doesn't think Lexus builds or should build an entry-level luxury car? Ohhhkayyyyyy then. Carry on.

Well, as an American, my genetics prevent me from pointing out precise locations on a map. However, if I had to make a guess, I'd say somewhere between Greenland and Idaho. (i made a lot of typos yesterday and i feel bad now)

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I9QwutlSExE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> I don't know what to say. I suppose I'll begin with an apology. I'm very ashamed I found this, that I watched it, and that I'm now posting it here. I'm very, very sorry for what I've done and very, very, very sorry that you're now probably watching the video. To confirm your thoughts, yes, that kid is the worst salesman of all time, ever. Yes, there's a good chance a salesperson that annoying is probably going wind up on your TV slangin' Made for TV junk and beating hookers. Yes, if that truck could, it would probably eat the dumb kid just to shut him up. Yes, if you were wondering, that's probably blood pouring out of your ears straight from your brain. Again, I'm sorry.

I was going to make the headline read something like "Misery (Porsche Panamera) Gets Company: Four-Door SLS En Route?" but decided it probably would be inadvisable.

G. Noble Editor/Reporter CheersandGears.com Thursday, 23rd February, 2012 The SLS AMG, Mercedes-Benz’s latest supercar offering, appears to be spawning quite the high-powered family. For 2012, the gull winged coupe has been joined by a more conventional open air roadster. Next year, the coupe will go on AMG’s Black Series diet and makeover plan. You would then expect a Black Series roadster to follow suit of the Black Series coupe for 2014, but if some recently leaked patent filings are any indication, the German automaker could have something a little more insane hidden up its sleeve instead. The patent drawings, filed with the German patent office, show what appears to be a four-door SLS. However, instead of four conventional front-hinged doors, the gull wing doors are shown to be left intact and behind them are a set of small, rear-hinged demi-doors much like one would find on vehicles like the recently departed Mazda RX-8, long deceased Saturn Ion coupe, or an extended cab pickup. The wheelbase has also been stretched to accommodate two rear seats that have been split by an extended center console, making for a 2+2 layout. The drawings also show the rear section of the center console feature a secondary set of COMMAND interface controls. It’s also worth noting that this potential four-door SLS doesn’t appear to have a complete B-pillar, which is interesting given that the packet of paperwork that accompanies the drawings seems to affirm the automaker is concerned with minimizing weight gain and preserving structural rigidity. When Benz officials were asked to comment on the leak and the drawings, questions were dodged with the old standard response of, “We won’t take the liberty of sharing comments for any potential future products.” Source: Autoblog View full article