Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'fumes'.
Found 8 results
-
Ram 1500 EcoDiesel 4x2 Models Making Their Owners Sick
William Maley posted an article in Ram Trucks
The Ram 1500 EcoDiesel has been widely lauded by the press for its impressive fuel economy. It has also become a big hit for the company. However, a number of owners are feeling a bit ill when driving their EcoDiesels. Detroit ABC news station WXYZ reported back in December that a number of Ram 1500 EcoDiesel owners are reporting feeling sick with a exhaust smell coming into the cabin. That smell happens to be diesel exhaust which causes headaches, lightheadedness, and dizzy-ness. Ram owner forums started reporting this issue in September and October, with a number of trucks being investigated by Chrysler and then being fixed with new exhaust coupling. At the time Chrysler said a small number of trucks were affected, however the number of complaints has since grown larger. Since the initial report, WXYZ has updated their story with a statement from Chrysler spokesman Eric Mayne saying the problem affects more trucks than previously thought, but only those that are two-wheel drive. Mayne decline to say how many trucks are affected, but did say that owners will be notified through a technical service bulletin, not a recall. Why not go with the recall? Chrysler has done internal testing to see where carbon monoxide levels were in the effected trucks and found that the levels were below a level where they were deemed to be too dangerous. Not surprisingly, some owners want Chrysler to go further. WXYZ interviewed a number of owners who reported that the smell was choking them and driving their vehicle required the windows being open. One said that he was worried about carrying kids in the truck due to the smell. We keep you updated if anything changes. Source: WXYZ, GreenCarReports.com, Ram1500Diesel.com -
Ram News: Ram 1500 EcoDiesel 4x2 Models Making Their Owners Sick
William Maley posted a topic in Ram
The Ram 1500 EcoDiesel has been widely lauded by the press for its impressive fuel economy. It has also become a big hit for the company. However, a number of owners are feeling a bit ill when driving their EcoDiesels. Detroit ABC news station WXYZ reported back in December that a number of Ram 1500 EcoDiesel owners are reporting feeling sick with a exhaust smell coming into the cabin. That smell happens to be diesel exhaust which causes headaches, lightheadedness, and dizzy-ness. Ram owner forums started reporting this issue in September and October, with a number of trucks being investigated by Chrysler and then being fixed with new exhaust coupling. At the time Chrysler said a small number of trucks were affected, however the number of complaints has since grown larger. Since the initial report, WXYZ has updated their story with a statement from Chrysler spokesman Eric Mayne saying the problem affects more trucks than previously thought, but only those that are two-wheel drive. Mayne decline to say how many trucks are affected, but did say that owners will be notified through a technical service bulletin, not a recall. Why not go with the recall? Chrysler has done internal testing to see where carbon monoxide levels were in the effected trucks and found that the levels were below a level where they were deemed to be too dangerous. Not surprisingly, some owners want Chrysler to go further. WXYZ interviewed a number of owners who reported that the smell was choking them and driving their vehicle required the windows being open. One said that he was worried about carrying kids in the truck due to the smell. We keep you updated if anything changes. Source: WXYZ, GreenCarReports.com, Ram1500Diesel.com View full article -
G. David Felt Staff Writer Alternative Energy - CheersandGears.com Wednesday, November 07, 2012 Tax Payer supplied Charging stations. Are we getting our money’s worth? Recently, a newly expanded Park and Ride by my house went live with charging outlets for 20 cars having been installed at the Mountlake Terrace park-and-ride lot at 236th Street SW and I-5. A dedication "plug-in" ceremony was held Saturday a few weeks ago even though completion of the place happened back in May. Each of the 10 stations is equipped with two outlets. One is a 120-volt, "level 1" outlet that charges a car from empty to full in 16 to 30 hours, depending on the type of vehicle. The other is a 240-volt, level 2 charger than can juice up a car in eight to 15 hours per the community transit press release. This is the most charging stations installed in any one location so far in Snohomish or King Counties. The new stations in Mountlake Terrace are the first to be installed at a park-and-ride lot in the county, according to websites that show station locations. Mountlake Terrace applied for and received a $55,000 federal grant for the stations. The city paid for installation, which she estimated at a few thousand dollars. The ChargePoint brand stations are made by Coulomb Technologies of Campbell, Calif. The project was done with the blessing of Community Transit, which leases the site from the state for the park-and-ride lot. Commuters with electric vehicles can now park, plug in and let their cars charge up all day while they're gone. The service costs 85 cents per hour with a maximum of $4 per session. The charging stations take credit cards. The charger shuts off automatically when the car's battery is full. The state also is planning to install a network of stations this year along I-5 from Oregon to Canada and along U.S. 2, called the "Electric Highway." Most of these will include level 3, DC "fast chargers" that can power a car from empty to full in 30 minutes. Washington state has choosen fast chargers for the freeway systems from AeroVironment, Inc. This allows most EV’s to charge in less than 30 minutes but for older cars or to top off a battery, you will have the level 2 chargers from AeroVironment also. Plans are for users to be able to use personal credit cards or sign up for the AeroVirontment Network . The AV network is a fob based system to use for charging. During the install period, AeroVironment is allowing free charging till the complete highway system is in place. You have both the Community Transit blog and the City MountLake Terrace (PDF) talking up this event. This big question to be asked is was this really needed or necessary? In this picture you can see that 10 of the white signs are actually visible and these are to be used by plug in cars, but they seem to sit empty all the time. To the left where you see a couple cars parked the signs and the charging stations are actually covered in black plastic bags so the parking can be used by the general public as there is never enough parking for traditional gas powered cars. So we have 20 spots built for Electric only auto’s and 10 of them are actually covered up allowing traditional auto’s to park there with the other 10 being vacant and not being used at all. One can see this in the picture below also that the signs are covered in black plastic. In submitting a request to Mountlake Terrace, I got no response and in calling to the office no one was willing to talk about the electrical parking spots and the lack of use by these spots on top of the actual cost. The generalized comments have been it only cost a couple thousand to install the units, but one has to challenge that considering the unionized nature of Electrical work done in Washington State. It is interesting that depending on the model you have a cost of $490 to $39,900 per model depending on what model is chosen and then the installation cost. Yet some systems have no cost listed as the company wants to only do custom quotes. A fairly complete list of charging systems with some prices can be seen here. A recent story on the installation of charging stations on Stevens pass, Highway 2 in Washington State here says that they have chosen a vendor for the 8 to 10 DC fast chargers that came within the $1 million budget. Also stated in the next paragraph is that this is part of a $250 million electric highway. The Seattle PI had the following story on their web site that states the Seattle area is getting 2500 charging stations as part of the $230 million dollar Electric Highway. Altogether, 15,000 charging stations will be installed in 4 states (Washington, California, Arizona and Tennessee and the District of Columbia) This equals out to a cost of $15,333 per charging station for the electric highway and is in addition to the charging stations installed by Cities at park and ride lots. Tonia Buell, from the Washington department of transportation in an email response has stated that Washington already has 12 DC fast charging locations on the state’s electric highway program in addition to the public schools and private business who are installing hundreds of Level 2 (medium speed) chargers through the EV project. In asking if the state is funding any of these charging stations, the response was no this is primarily funded through the US Department of Energy, Electric Auto supply companies, private businesses and citizens contributing to the EV investment. The Washington DOT has posted on their web site about 8 to 10 fast chargers from a DOE $1.5 million grant and they talk about the EV Highway but do not mention the rest of the costs. Depending on which story and quote you go with, we either have $15,333 dollar charging stations or $16,666 charging stations. The cost of the charging stations plus which level you can use for your EV auto, Level 1, 2 or 3 gives you a 10 to 30 minute fast charge time or up to 8 hrs or longer. So you travel 80 miles if you truly can get this on a Nissan Leaf and then wait up to 30 min to charge and then travel another 80 miles. This alone means to travel the 174 miles from Seattle Washington to Portland Oregon you will need 3 stops for charging, 1 ½ hrs. plus your almost 3hrs of travel time. So you have a 4 -5hr trip from Seattle to Portland versus a 2 ½ hrs. trip in a petrol or CNG auto. Washington state DOT is using the story published by Motor Trend as a positive support and proof that you should ease your range anxiety. Yet even in this story, the amount of time spent charging along the so called EV Highway still also shows how much extra time it will take to travel a modest 250 miles. Even with the Flyer that is being provided to anyone who asks about the EV highway, it seems to beg more questions than answers. In regards to maintenance, the electric charging companies have a vested interest in these systems paying back and are responsible for maintenance to the units so as to not have a cost to anyone but those using them according the WSDOT. Yet what happens to a person when one of these systems is offline due to a need of maintenance and with no real answer being supplied on what is the life expectancy? Hours spent on a 120V charge will not cut it on a road trip. So in going back to our original question, Are we getting our money’s worth? Is the tax payer money really being well spent by investing in this technology at this time and what about the required Maintenance? Looking at the global picture we will eventually get to a need for this kind of charging, but society as a whole is nowhere near ready for using luxury golf cart type autos on the main roads for long road trips. The amount of vacant sitting parking spots dedicated to such a small amount of auto’s seems to show excessive waste in tax payers’ money when other needs should come first. It would seem that jumping on this technology which has been pushed by a very wealthy, well connected group of individuals is spending hard working tax payer’s money for a solution that is not needed at this time. Most people can charge their cars at home, drive to the park-N-ride lot and get back home without having to pay to charge up. So the question still begs to be asked; Is the tax payer getting their money's worth for the Electric highway? -
G. David Felt Staff Writer Alternative Energy - CheersandGears.com Wednesday, November 07, 2012 Tax Payer supplied Charging stations. Are we getting our money’s worth? Recently, a newly expanded Park and Ride by my house went live with charging outlets for 20 cars having been installed at the Mountlake Terrace park-and-ride lot at 236th Street SW and I-5. A dedication "plug-in" ceremony was held Saturday a few weeks ago even though completion of the place happened back in May. Each of the 10 stations is equipped with two outlets. One is a 120-volt, "level 1" outlet that charges a car from empty to full in 16 to 30 hours, depending on the type of vehicle. The other is a 240-volt, level 2 charger than can juice up a car in eight to 15 hours per the community transit press release. This is the most charging stations installed in any one location so far in Snohomish or King Counties. The new stations in Mountlake Terrace are the first to be installed at a park-and-ride lot in the county, according to websites that show station locations. Mountlake Terrace applied for and received a $55,000 federal grant for the stations. The city paid for installation, which she estimated at a few thousand dollars. The ChargePoint brand stations are made by Coulomb Technologies of Campbell, Calif. The project was done with the blessing of Community Transit, which leases the site from the state for the park-and-ride lot. Commuters with electric vehicles can now park, plug in and let their cars charge up all day while they're gone. The service costs 85 cents per hour with a maximum of $4 per session. The charging stations take credit cards. The charger shuts off automatically when the car's battery is full. The state also is planning to install a network of stations this year along I-5 from Oregon to Canada and along U.S. 2, called the "Electric Highway." Most of these will include level 3, DC "fast chargers" that can power a car from empty to full in 30 minutes. Washington state has choosen fast chargers for the freeway systems from AeroVironment, Inc. This allows most EV’s to charge in less than 30 minutes but for older cars or to top off a battery, you will have the level 2 chargers from AeroVironment also. Plans are for users to be able to use personal credit cards or sign up for the AeroVirontment Network . The AV network is a fob based system to use for charging. During the install period, AeroVironment is allowing free charging till the complete highway system is in place. You have both the Community Transit blog and the City MountLake Terrace (PDF) talking up this event. This big question to be asked is was this really needed or necessary? In this picture you can see that 10 of the white signs are actually visible and these are to be used by plug in cars, but they seem to sit empty all the time. To the left where you see a couple cars parked the signs and the charging stations are actually covered in black plastic bags so the parking can be used by the general public as there is never enough parking for traditional gas powered cars. So we have 20 spots built for Electric only auto’s and 10 of them are actually covered up allowing traditional auto’s to park there with the other 10 being vacant and not being used at all. One can see this in the picture below also that the signs are covered in black plastic. In submitting a request to Mountlake Terrace, I got no response and in calling to the office no one was willing to talk about the electrical parking spots and the lack of use by these spots on top of the actual cost. The generalized comments have been it only cost a couple thousand to install the units, but one has to challenge that considering the unionized nature of Electrical work done in Washington State. It is interesting that depending on the model you have a cost of $490 to $39,900 per model depending on what model is chosen and then the installation cost. Yet some systems have no cost listed as the company wants to only do custom quotes. A fairly complete list of charging systems with some prices can be seen here. A recent story on the installation of charging stations on Stevens pass, Highway 2 in Washington State here says that they have chosen a vendor for the 8 to 10 DC fast chargers that came within the $1 million budget. Also stated in the next paragraph is that this is part of a $250 million electric highway. The Seattle PI had the following story on their web site that states the Seattle area is getting 2500 charging stations as part of the $230 million dollar Electric Highway. Altogether, 15,000 charging stations will be installed in 4 states (Washington, California, Arizona and Tennessee and the District of Columbia) This equals out to a cost of $15,333 per charging station for the electric highway and is in addition to the charging stations installed by Cities at park and ride lots. Tonia Buell, from the Washington department of transportation in an email response has stated that Washington already has 12 DC fast charging locations on the state’s electric highway program in addition to the public schools and private business who are installing hundreds of Level 2 (medium speed) chargers through the EV project. In asking if the state is funding any of these charging stations, the response was no this is primarily funded through the US Department of Energy, Electric Auto supply companies, private businesses and citizens contributing to the EV investment. The Washington DOT has posted on their web site about 8 to 10 fast chargers from a DOE $1.5 million grant and they talk about the EV Highway but do not mention the rest of the costs. Depending on which story and quote you go with, we either have $15,333 dollar charging stations or $16,666 charging stations. The cost of the charging stations plus which level you can use for your EV auto, Level 1, 2 or 3 gives you a 10 to 30 minute fast charge time or up to 8 hrs or longer. So you travel 80 miles if you truly can get this on a Nissan Leaf and then wait up to 30 min to charge and then travel another 80 miles. This alone means to travel the 174 miles from Seattle Washington to Portland Oregon you will need 3 stops for charging, 1 ½ hrs. plus your almost 3hrs of travel time. So you have a 4 -5hr trip from Seattle to Portland versus a 2 ½ hrs. trip in a petrol or CNG auto. Washington state DOT is using the story published by Motor Trend as a positive support and proof that you should ease your range anxiety. Yet even in this story, the amount of time spent charging along the so called EV Highway still also shows how much extra time it will take to travel a modest 250 miles. Even with the Flyer that is being provided to anyone who asks about the EV highway, it seems to beg more questions than answers. In regards to maintenance, the electric charging companies have a vested interest in these systems paying back and are responsible for maintenance to the units so as to not have a cost to anyone but those using them according the WSDOT. Yet what happens to a person when one of these systems is offline due to a need of maintenance and with no real answer being supplied on what is the life expectancy? Hours spent on a 120V charge will not cut it on a road trip. So in going back to our original question, Are we getting our money’s worth? Is the tax payer money really being well spent by investing in this technology at this time and what about the required Maintenance? Looking at the global picture we will eventually get to a need for this kind of charging, but society as a whole is nowhere near ready for using luxury golf cart type autos on the main roads for long road trips. The amount of vacant sitting parking spots dedicated to such a small amount of auto’s seems to show excessive waste in tax payers’ money when other needs should come first. It would seem that jumping on this technology which has been pushed by a very wealthy, well connected group of individuals is spending hard working tax payer’s money for a solution that is not needed at this time. Most people can charge their cars at home, drive to the park-N-ride lot and get back home without having to pay to charge up. So the question still begs to be asked; Is the tax payer getting their money's worth for the Electric highway? View full article
-
Cort Stevens Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com March 21, 2012 Toyota Camry. Honda Accord. Since 1982 and 1976 respectively, these two models have evolved and changed with the times, without enduring a name change. Similar history can be traced for such entries as the Honda Odyssey. The first one wasn't much about which to write, but Honda persevered with the name and developed it into a top seller in its segment. While some examples of continuous monickers don't celebrate similar history, the names have stuck. For instance, the Nissan Quest, first available in 1993 (with a re-badge model sold as the Mercury Villager), is today in its fourth generation even though none of the variations have particularly resonated with buyers. Yet, American manufacturers have a knack for giving us a plethora of different names for virtually the same model. GM, Ford and Chrysler do this, perhaps too well. One glaring group from GM's portfolio is the Malibu/Celebrity/Lumina/monte carlo/impala debacle. The front-wheel drive Celebrity, which replaced the last-ever rear-wheel drive Malibu, evolved into the first-generation front-wheel drive Lumina coupe and sedan for 1990. When the Lumina's second generation debuted in 1995, the sedan stuck with the Lumina monicker, while the front-wheel drive coupe shockingly became the monte carlo, through the 2007 model year. When the third-generation Lumina redesign came for the 2000 model year, the monte carlo coupe donned design cues from the original rear-wheel drive Monte Carlos, 1970-1988, and the sedan switched from the Lumina nameplate to a front-wheel drive version of the all-too-familiar impala name, which continues today. Speaking of the Impala, for its original rear-wheel drive run, GM saw fit to keep that name continuously 1958-1985. It's sister, Caprice, was also used unchanged, 1965-1996. The Caprice, though, was originally an Impala luxury trim package. The two siblings ran concurrently 1965-1985, when the Impala was dropped in favor of the Caprice nameplate. After the Caprice redesign in 1991, GM delivered an SS model of the Caprice, dubbed Impala. The Caprice/Impala SS were then dropped entirely after 1996. Unlike the Impala, Monte Carlo, Malibu and Nova nameplates, the Caprice, Corvette and Camaro have never been front-wheel drive vehicles...so far. For further confusion, today's front-wheel drive Malibu holds its portion of the segment that once included the original rear-wheel drive Nova, front-wheel drive Citation and front-wheel drive Corsica. Other GM flip-flops include the Cavalier, Cobalt and Cruze trio; the LUV, S-10 and Colorado triad; the Metro, Aveo and Sonic combo; the Lumina APV, Venture and Uplander series; and the revived front-wheel drive nova and Prizm duo, which were GM versions of the venerable Toyota Corolla. Other GM branches (GMC, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac) have similar name changers, including the GMC S-15, Sonoma and Canyon. Interestingly, some models did not go through the complete name transformation. For instance, when the Lumina APV was renamed Venture, the Oldsmobile mini van remained Silhouette. The cousins to the original 1970-1988 Monte Carlo (Buick Regal, Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and Pontiac Grand Prix) all debuted on front-wheel drive cars immediately after the rear-wheel drive versions were axed. Further head-scratching examples include siblings of the original Nova turned Citation. For instance, the Omega was Oldsmobile's version of the Nova, 1973-1979, but remained in 1980 as the nameplate for Oldsmobile's version of the Nova-replacing Citation. When the Citation gave way to the Corsica, the Omega was replaced by the Calais. Want to be further amused? The Nova's Pontiac sibling was originally named Ventura, then switched to Phoenix in 1977 and remained Phoenix through the switch to front-wheel drive in 1980, before being replaced in 1985 with a new front-wheel drive Grand Am, which earlier had been a sibling to the original Malibu/Chevelle line. Buick doesn't escape unscathed. The Apollo debuted in 1973. In 1975, the Skylark name returned on Buick's version of the Nova, but only on the 2-door versions. The 4-door version remained Apollo for 1975. A year later, the Apollo was gone, and Nova's Buick sibling was the Skylark, which lasted through the front-wheel drive switch in 1980 and remained as a sibling to the Grand Am through 1998. GM has plenty of company in this nonsense. Ford gave us the Falcon, Maverick, Fairmont, Tempo, Contour and Fusion family; the Aerostar, Windstar and Freestar triad; and the Pinto, Escort and Focus trio. These owe the last monicker to Ford's move to rename their cars so that each started with the letter "F", with the obvious exceptions of the Mustang and Crown Victoria. Arguably, though, the Fusion has more brand equity than any of its predecessors, thanks in part to global branding and its use in NASCAR. Mercury received a similar fate, with examples such as the Villager/Monterey and Sable/Montego. Back to the Fairmont/Tempo, Ford expected buyers of the Fairmont to turn to the new mid-size LTD rather than the Tempo, which is generally cited as the Fairmont successor. The Tempo was basically a new slot for Ford, set between the Escort and the LTD. The new LTD, though, is credited for replacing the Granada. What was the successor for that mid-size LTD? None other than the Taurus, which then returned to replace the Five Hundred in the late 2000s. Regarding the Crown Victoria nameplate and the mid-1980s mid-sized LTD, the Crown Victoria (and its sibling Mercury Grand Marquis) lasted 20 years. But, previous models were dubbed LTD and LTD Crown Victoria. The "Crown Victoria" was needed, in part, to distinguish it from the mid-size vehicle that featured the same LTD monicker. And, let's not forget the iconic Thunderbird. This name stuck around for a long time, but on a variety of vehicles. It began as a 2-seat coupe in response to the Corvette, and it ended in similar 2-seater fashion. But, in between, the Thunderbird took on various forms, including a sedan. It eventually became the Monte Carlo's main nemesis during the Monte Carlo's original 1970-1988 run. Have a headache yet? Dodge has also ventured in the sport, with the Dart, Aspen, Aries, Lancer, Spirit, Stratus (sedan), Avenger (coupe), Stratus (coupe) and Avenger (sedan) revolving door. In the case of those last four, the name change came with nothing more than a refresh of the previous car. Dodge compact cars have their own revolving door running from Omni to Shadow to Neon to Caliber and then to Dart (see above). The full-size Monaco was renamed St Regis, then Diplomat. The Monaco nameplate returned on a rebadge of AMC/Renault. This front-wheel drive version led to the front-wheel drive Intrepid before Daimler dodged in to deliver the rear-wheel drive Charger. The Charger name itself has had various reincarnations, including the mid-size rear-wheel drive coupe best known as the General Lee and the compact-size, K-car based, front-wheel drive cars of the mid-1980s. The original Charger was renamed Magnum for a brief 2 year stint ('78 and '79) before being renamed Mirada. Yet, the Charger's Chrysler cousin, the Cordoba, did not go through a name change during its 1975-1983 run. From 1975-1979, the Cordoba (and its Dodge counterparts), had a different kind of identity crisis, swiping design cues from the 1973-1977 Monte Carlo. To Dodge's credit, another name that didn't stray from the fold was the Dodge Caravan (and its variants and siblings). The Caravan bowed in 1984 and is still in production today, in the midst of its fifth generation, as is the Chrysler Town & Country (and a variant Chrysler Voyager). The only minivan name no longer in production is the Plymouth Voyager, but that's only because Plymouth has since disappeared from the scene altogether. So, why so many names? Maybe the manufacturers utilize the multi-name strategy to confuse us, partly to make more money. An obvious example of this is the tail end of the aforementioned Malibu/Celebrity/Lumina/monte carlo/impala lineage. When the Lumina debuted in NASCAR, many people thought that the Lumina replaced the Monte Carlo, and GM did nothing to correct that perception, believing the truth would hurt sales of the new Lumina. But, evidence indicates the Lumina replaced the Celebrity. According to the book Chevrolet: The Complete History [copyright 1996, Publications International LTD], on page 348: "With the new Lumina coupe and sedan effectively replacing their Celebrity counterparts...." And, on page 359: "Taking the place of the aging Celebrity sedan was the Lumina sedan ... a coupe version followed in the fall." Further evidence is in the models (Eurosport) and design features (flat/horizontal dashboard; 3 square/horizontal taillights on each side; front-wheel drive) the Lumina shared with the outgoing Celebrity. Further complicating things, the monte carlo raced back to NASCAR when the nameplate returned to replace the Lumina coupe in 1995. This switch, along with the Lumina sedan becoming the impala five years later [as well as the return of the nova nameplate in the 1980s and the malibu nameplate in the 1990s], was designed to bring back consumers (make more money) by evoking nostalgia with well-known heritage nameplates. In fact, the 2000 impala dealer brochure featured an image of an older Impala set along a stretch of 2-lane road with a "US 66" sign, designed to elicit memories of the original Impalas and Route 66. When the monte carlo was dropped after the 2007 model year, the impala sedan sped into NASCAR. Now, GM has promised, in its own recent press release, "a new nameplate to the brand's lineup" will replace the NASCAR impala in 2013. So, if GM is true to its word, it will not be the Camaro, Caprice, Chevelle or even Monte Carlo, since all of those are old nameplates to the brand. Maybe manufacturers use so many names hoping a name change will breathe new life (in terms of sales/recognition) into a particular model/segment. In some cases, they have. One fine example is the aforementioned Fusion. This new nameplate replaced an old nameplate (Contour) that had a certain stigma to it. The Fusion then raced to new heights its predecessors never touched, thanks, in part, to its NASCAR usage. Other examples of warranted name changes include the Aveo to Sonic and the Pinto (which burned out) to Escort (which wore out), eventually to Focus. Whatever the reasons, the cost of such name changes are probably more than we can imagine. After all, with a name change comes paying someone (or people?) to create the name. Then, the company has to spend money to publicize and market that new name. Branding is big business. Yet, while GM, Ford and Dodge spew out different names every few years for the same model segment vehicle (with a few notable exceptions), Toyota and Honda seem to do just fine, without the abrupt and confusing name changes. Toyota and Honda don't need the smoke and mirrors of introducing a new name every few years, thanks to the perceived higher quality. Even when the quality isn't quite there, Honda and Toyota are able to move ahead with the same name because of the esteem of the brand (the Honda Odyssey referred to earlier is a premier example). Love them or hate them, the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord have become legendary for their longevity in the marketplace and "growing up" with their buyers. To GM's credit, one nameplate has lasted longer than even the Camry and Accord: Suburban. View full article
-
Cort Stevens Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com March 21, 2012 Toyota Camry. Honda Accord. Since 1982 and 1976 respectively, these two models have evolved and changed with the times, without enduring a name change. Similar history can be traced for such entries as the Honda Odyssey. The first one wasn't much about which to write, but Honda persevered with the name and developed it into a top seller in its segment. While some examples of continuous monickers don't celebrate similar history, the names have stuck. For instance, the Nissan Quest, first available in 1993 (with a re-badge model sold as the Mercury Villager), is today in its fourth generation even though none of the variations have particularly resonated with buyers. Yet, American manufacturers have a knack for giving us a plethora of different names for virtually the same model. GM, Ford and Chrysler do this, perhaps too well. One glaring group from GM's portfolio is the Malibu/Celebrity/Lumina/monte carlo/impala debacle. The front-wheel drive Celebrity, which replaced the last-ever rear-wheel drive Malibu, evolved into the first-generation front-wheel drive Lumina coupe and sedan for 1990. When the Lumina's second generation debuted in 1995, the sedan stuck with the Lumina monicker, while the front-wheel drive coupe shockingly became the monte carlo, through the 2007 model year. When the third-generation Lumina redesign came for the 2000 model year, the monte carlo coupe donned design cues from the original rear-wheel drive Monte Carlos, 1970-1988, and the sedan switched from the Lumina nameplate to a front-wheel drive version of the all-too-familiar impala name, which continues today. Speaking of the Impala, for its original rear-wheel drive run, GM saw fit to keep that name continuously 1958-1985. It's sister, Caprice, was also used unchanged, 1965-1996. The Caprice, though, was originally an Impala luxury trim package. The two siblings ran concurrently 1965-1985, when the Impala was dropped in favor of the Caprice nameplate. After the Caprice redesign in 1991, GM delivered an SS model of the Caprice, dubbed Impala. The Caprice/Impala SS were then dropped entirely after 1996. Unlike the Impala, Monte Carlo, Malibu and Nova nameplates, the Caprice, Corvette and Camaro have never been front-wheel drive vehicles...so far. For further confusion, today's front-wheel drive Malibu holds its portion of the segment that once included the original rear-wheel drive Nova, front-wheel drive Citation and front-wheel drive Corsica. Other GM flip-flops include the Cavalier, Cobalt and Cruze trio; the LUV, S-10 and Colorado triad; the Metro, Aveo and Sonic combo; the Lumina APV, Venture and Uplander series; and the revived front-wheel drive nova and Prizm duo, which were GM versions of the venerable Toyota Corolla. Other GM branches (GMC, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac) have similar name changers, including the GMC S-15, Sonoma and Canyon. Interestingly, some models did not go through the complete name transformation. For instance, when the Lumina APV was renamed Venture, the Oldsmobile mini van remained Silhouette. The cousins to the original 1970-1988 Monte Carlo (Buick Regal, Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and Pontiac Grand Prix) all debuted on front-wheel drive cars immediately after the rear-wheel drive versions were axed. Further head-scratching examples include siblings of the original Nova turned Citation. For instance, the Omega was Oldsmobile's version of the Nova, 1973-1979, but remained in 1980 as the nameplate for Oldsmobile's version of the Nova-replacing Citation. When the Citation gave way to the Corsica, the Omega was replaced by the Calais. Want to be further amused? The Nova's Pontiac sibling was originally named Ventura, then switched to Phoenix in 1977 and remained Phoenix through the switch to front-wheel drive in 1980, before being replaced in 1985 with a new front-wheel drive Grand Am, which earlier had been a sibling to the original Malibu/Chevelle line. Buick doesn't escape unscathed. The Apollo debuted in 1973. In 1975, the Skylark name returned on Buick's version of the Nova, but only on the 2-door versions. The 4-door version remained Apollo for 1975. A year later, the Apollo was gone, and Nova's Buick sibling was the Skylark, which lasted through the front-wheel drive switch in 1980 and remained as a sibling to the Grand Am through 1998. GM has plenty of company in this nonsense. Ford gave us the Falcon, Maverick, Fairmont, Tempo, Contour and Fusion family; the Aerostar, Windstar and Freestar triad; and the Pinto, Escort and Focus trio. These owe the last monicker to Ford's move to rename their cars so that each started with the letter "F", with the obvious exceptions of the Mustang and Crown Victoria. Arguably, though, the Fusion has more brand equity than any of its predecessors, thanks in part to global branding and its use in NASCAR. Mercury received a similar fate, with examples such as the Villager/Monterey and Sable/Montego. Back to the Fairmont/Tempo, Ford expected buyers of the Fairmont to turn to the new mid-size LTD rather than the Tempo, which is generally cited as the Fairmont successor. The Tempo was basically a new slot for Ford, set between the Escort and the LTD. The new LTD, though, is credited for replacing the Granada. What was the successor for that mid-size LTD? None other than the Taurus, which then returned to replace the Five Hundred in the late 2000s. Regarding the Crown Victoria nameplate and the mid-1980s mid-sized LTD, the Crown Victoria (and its sibling Mercury Grand Marquis) lasted 20 years. But, previous models were dubbed LTD and LTD Crown Victoria. The "Crown Victoria" was needed, in part, to distinguish it from the mid-size vehicle that featured the same LTD monicker. And, let's not forget the iconic Thunderbird. This name stuck around for a long time, but on a variety of vehicles. It began as a 2-seat coupe in response to the Corvette, and it ended in similar 2-seater fashion. But, in between, the Thunderbird took on various forms, including a sedan. It eventually became the Monte Carlo's main nemesis during the Monte Carlo's original 1970-1988 run. Have a headache yet? Dodge has also ventured in the sport, with the Dart, Aspen, Aries, Lancer, Spirit, Stratus (sedan), Avenger (coupe), Stratus (coupe) and Avenger (sedan) revolving door. In the case of those last four, the name change came with nothing more than a refresh of the previous car. Dodge compact cars have their own revolving door running from Omni to Shadow to Neon to Caliber and then to Dart (see above). The full-size Monaco was renamed St Regis, then Diplomat. The Monaco nameplate returned on a rebadge of AMC/Renault. This front-wheel drive version led to the front-wheel drive Intrepid before Daimler dodged in to deliver the rear-wheel drive Charger. The Charger name itself has had various reincarnations, including the mid-size rear-wheel drive coupe best known as the General Lee and the compact-size, K-car based, front-wheel drive cars of the mid-1980s. The original Charger was renamed Magnum for a brief 2 year stint ('78 and '79) before being renamed Mirada. Yet, the Charger's Chrysler cousin, the Cordoba, did not go through a name change during its 1975-1983 run. From 1975-1979, the Cordoba (and its Dodge counterparts), had a different kind of identity crisis, swiping design cues from the 1973-1977 Monte Carlo. To Dodge's credit, another name that didn't stray from the fold was the Dodge Caravan (and its variants and siblings). The Caravan bowed in 1984 and is still in production today, in the midst of its fifth generation, as is the Chrysler Town & Country (and a variant Chrysler Voyager). The only minivan name no longer in production is the Plymouth Voyager, but that's only because Plymouth has since disappeared from the scene altogether. So, why so many names? Maybe the manufacturers utilize the multi-name strategy to confuse us, partly to make more money. An obvious example of this is the tail end of the aforementioned Malibu/Celebrity/Lumina/monte carlo/impala lineage. When the Lumina debuted in NASCAR, many people thought that the Lumina replaced the Monte Carlo, and GM did nothing to correct that perception, believing the truth would hurt sales of the new Lumina. But, evidence indicates the Lumina replaced the Celebrity. According to the book Chevrolet: The Complete History [copyright 1996, Publications International LTD], on page 348: "With the new Lumina coupe and sedan effectively replacing their Celebrity counterparts...." And, on page 359: "Taking the place of the aging Celebrity sedan was the Lumina sedan ... a coupe version followed in the fall." Further evidence is in the models (Eurosport) and design features (flat/horizontal dashboard; 3 square/horizontal taillights on each side; front-wheel drive) the Lumina shared with the outgoing Celebrity. Further complicating things, the monte carlo raced back to NASCAR when the nameplate returned to replace the Lumina coupe in 1995. This switch, along with the Lumina sedan becoming the impala five years later [as well as the return of the nova nameplate in the 1980s and the malibu nameplate in the 1990s], was designed to bring back consumers (make more money) by evoking nostalgia with well-known heritage nameplates. In fact, the 2000 impala dealer brochure featured an image of an older Impala set along a stretch of 2-lane road with a "US 66" sign, designed to elicit memories of the original Impalas and Route 66. When the monte carlo was dropped after the 2007 model year, the impala sedan sped into NASCAR. Now, GM has promised, in its own recent press release, "a new nameplate to the brand's lineup" will replace the NASCAR impala in 2013. So, if GM is true to its word, it will not be the Camaro, Caprice, Chevelle or even Monte Carlo, since all of those are old nameplates to the brand. Maybe manufacturers use so many names hoping a name change will breathe new life (in terms of sales/recognition) into a particular model/segment. In some cases, they have. One fine example is the aforementioned Fusion. This new nameplate replaced an old nameplate (Contour) that had a certain stigma to it. The Fusion then raced to new heights its predecessors never touched, thanks, in part, to its NASCAR usage. Other examples of warranted name changes include the Aveo to Sonic and the Pinto (which burned out) to Escort (which wore out), eventually to Focus. Whatever the reasons, the cost of such name changes are probably more than we can imagine. After all, with a name change comes paying someone (or people?) to create the name. Then, the company has to spend money to publicize and market that new name. Branding is big business. Yet, while GM, Ford and Dodge spew out different names every few years for the same model segment vehicle (with a few notable exceptions), Toyota and Honda seem to do just fine, without the abrupt and confusing name changes. Toyota and Honda don't need the smoke and mirrors of introducing a new name every few years, thanks to the perceived higher quality. Even when the quality isn't quite there, Honda and Toyota are able to move ahead with the same name because of the esteem of the brand (the Honda Odyssey referred to earlier is a premier example). Love them or hate them, the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord have become legendary for their longevity in the marketplace and "growing up" with their buyers. To GM's credit, one nameplate has lasted longer than even the Camry and Accord: Suburban. -
G. Noble Editor/Reporter CheersandGears.com 28th February, 2012 It’s now official; the majority of my generation — Generation Y — has a deep-rooted dislike for the automobile. Unlike our parents from the Baby Boomer and Generation X age brackets, we no longer associate cars with our own independence. Instead, smartphones and laptops have become symbols of autonomy in my generation. I’ll admit that it didn’t exactly make sense to me when I first caught wind of it. I’m a ripe 21 years-old, which almost puts me smack dab in the middle of Generation Y, and I personally love cars. It’s always been that way since I discovered the ability to talk and walk. As a boy, I grew up flipping through old issues of Car and Driver and admiring photos of all the sheetmetal; I grew up traveling 70 miles one way between home and relatives about once every month. I grew up hanging out before and after school in the Chrysler service department where my mother once worked before the dealer was shut down for warranty fraud; I also grew up looking forward to my sixteenth birthday and getting my driver’s permit I also love driving, especially when I have an open stretch of road mostly to myself. I know it sounds like I’m just another massive petrol head, and that may be so. I’ll certainly never deny it. What I couldn’t understand was how I suddenly became a generational oddity overnight, someone who still viewed the car as one of the few ultimate forms of personal liberation. Along with the initial confusion came worry as well. There are around 76 million people that make up my generation, about three times the size of the preceding Generation X and pretty much the same size as the Baby Boomer generation. We make up a fourth of the U.S. population. The thought of well over half of my generation in total discord with the automobile could effectively mean that my hopes of a career in auto journalism would all be for naught. After all, our time as the leading generation is rapidly approaching and when the majority of the leading generation doesn’t bother with cars, that means no one will want to read or hear about them. That means I might as well hang it up. This news bothered me so much that, for the first time in a little while, I had to really sit down and examine the bigger picture, think in a new context. How did we go from personal transportation all the way down to personal electronics? (Cont. page 2) Apple's iPhone Sure, I own an iPhone and I can see how the level of peer-to-peer connectivity — contact anyone, anytime, anywhere either through a voice call, text message, or a social networking website — and information connectivity it offers on the fly would be hard to live without. I can also see how life without a computer would be hard to deal with. At the moment, having a personal laptop with internet access is essential to achieving my own career goals and its absence would make things difficult. On the other hand, talking over the phone or through Facebook wall comments are nothing like interacting with other people in the real world. On top of that, the increased and easily accessible connectivity those devices offer can sometimes lead to a decrease in privacy that ironically limits your freedom. When you have a device that anyone can reach you at all hours of the day in a billion different ways, there’s no denying you’re going to have days where people are constantly bombarding you and you’ll grow sick of it. At the end of the day, the only way you can really interact with friends and family is on a face-to-face basis in the real world, hopefully on your own terms. And what takes you into the real word from place to place on your own time and terms is none other than a car. Okay, yes I know only $60 will buy you an all-day city bus pass every day for a month in some places. Yes, that’s cheaper than paying for gas and insurance for a car that you don’t have a bank lien on. Yes, it can take you beyond your four walls and out into the real world the same way a car can. But taking the bus presents hassles in having to plan your entire day around a bus schedule and putting up with a big number of obnoxious morons who’d rather fight you than talk to you. And what if you live in a rural town? There typically isn’t any sort of mass transit to speak of and there’s a good chance it’ll probably never appear. Folks are usually too busy to let you hitch a ride somewhere, too. From there, I eventually reached an epiphany of sorts: it isn’t that anyone would rather stay at home and twiddle on Twitter constantly with their Droid. It isn’t that anyone would honestly rather take the bus. No, it’s really all about the concept of ownership as well as what you have to show for your money. I know the so-called analysts will tell you us Millennials (slang for Gen-Y) have what’s called a “fluid concept of ownership” — whatever the hell that means — and we care more about having access to something than owning it. Hmmm … you know, I don’t think that’s exactly right. (Cont. page 3) Which is better? The Toyota Corolla or a smartphone? Okay, sure we bog down our hard drives, smartphones, and iPods with music that we have no physical copies of and access what songs we don’t already have through free, ad-based internet radio services like Pandora and Last.fm. Yeah, we’d rather chuck out $10 a month to have Netflix instead of having to pay big bucks to clog a bookshelf up with BluRays and only have a fraction of the content to show for it. So what? I don’t think any of us would disagree that actually owning physical copies of our favorite albums and movies would be much more rewarding, but who can afford it especially when there are cheaper alternatives that are instantaneous and almost as reliable? The interactive experience of CD packaging simply isn’t worth the additional cost. That’s just entertainment, though; it’s an extra expense. If you’re basing our concept of ownership solely on that, well, you’re just a clueless, old bastard aren’t you? We still care about having something to call our own; it’s just that we’re very value conscious and prefer stretching our money. I’m actually starting to think it’s understandable we’ve latched onto smartphones and laptops as a majority. I mean, what gives you more bang-for-your-buck? An umpteen-thousand dollar Toyota Yaris or Corolla that looks like rubbish, drives like rubbish, and does absolutely nothing right? Or a few-hundred dollar hi-tech smartphone that can reliably call your girlfriend, order you pizza, and play your favorite song in the background all at the same time while you sit on the john? As much as it shocks and pains me to say it, you can put the latter on my credit card anytime, thanks. The smartphone certainly has more substance than a Toyota. It’s also safe to say by now it’s the more involving device and obviously cooler. You can say to someone with pride that you own an iPhone or a Droid RZR. You can’t do that with some cheap Toyota, or any other cheap small car for that matter. So, we’ve fallen out of favor with the car not because we hate them, it’s because there isn’t one single affordable new car out that’s compelling enough for us to try and go into debt for one and pay for the extra costs that comes along with it. We’re a generation that cares about specifications and most if not all affordable cars are unwholesomely boring and offer nothing of interest, not a single redeeming quality. As evidenced by a recent Edmunds article, some of us still yearn for top-drawer sports cars like Porsche 911s because anyone can see plain as day what it has to put on the table: good styling, great performance and hardware, and lust-worthy recognition. A $10,000 dollar Nissan Versa, which looks like a piglet with elephantitis and has about the same fuel economy and performance characteristics, is an obvious burlap sack in comparison. Like I said, my generation doesn’t pay good money for stupid junk with dismal hardware. We’d rather do things right the first time and put mere pennies aside and walk until retirement age to buy the 911 rather than have to drive the dumb little Versa. What I think or rather know would get my generation looking at cars again are small cars that can be had for a few thousand below the average small car price of $18,000 (that includes tax and other fees), something that you can pay $200 a month on, tops. It also has to have evocative styling and a big-dog attitude. It has to consume fuel at a dismal pace and be dead reliable. It has to be reasonably quick and great to drive. It has to be cheap as dirt to insure. This really isn’t asking for too much. Which small car out there ticks off all those boxes? I can’t think of a single one. And here’s what’s really worrisome — automakers know what they’ve gotta build to get us into showrooms but they aren’t building it. (Cont. page 4) Chevrolet Code130R concept At this year’s Detroit Auto Show, GM rolled out two small Chevrolet concept coupes with our generation set dead in their sights — the Code130R and Tru140S. The Code130R was designed as a modern day, American BMW 2002 for a buyer on a budget. It was also an awesome concept on paper spec-wise; low curb weight, rear-wheel drive, 40 mpg highway, six-speed auto or manual gearbox, and some decent utility. The Tru140S was designed to deliver the same visual experience as what you get from an Italian supercar and, arguably, it won more fans for its styling than the Code130R did. It too was very fuel efficient and had promised decent performance, never mind it was based on the Chevy Cruze. And because both concepts were powered by small four-cylinder engines, that would make them cheap to insure. These two concepts show that GM knows that our generation cares about hardware, about specs, and about good styling. More importantly, those two concepts are proof that the small car market is going to have to move beyond using the standard Civrolla template to attract buyers my age. With that said, the Chevys had a major shortfall — GM said that either car could come to market under $25,000 dollars. Never mind the cheap fuel costs and insurance premiums; the target price automatically makes them unobtainable. Let’s forget the Chevy fantasy-mobiles then. As cool as they might have been, they weren’t the first concept cars that targeted my age group. Instead, that distinction goes to Chrysler ten years ago and they managed to do things a little bit better. Chevrolet Tru140S concept (Cont. page 5) Dodge M80 concept pickup At the 2002 Detroit Auto Show, ChryCo rolled out two concepts cars, the Dodge M80 and Dodge Razor. The Dodge M80 was a small pickup truck. With its tough-looking exterior inspired by old Dodge Power Wagons, there’s no denying it looked seriously cool. It was also lightweight at just 2,500 pounds, which meant that, although it was equipped with a V6 engine good for 210 horsepower and sub-eight second zero to sixty times, it would prove to be economical. It was also designed to use off-the-shelf parts and cheap but durable materials to keep the price way, way down. It was also full of innovative storage and design features like side cargo box storage and a center console that doubled as a portable cooler. The same mentality was evident in the Dodge Razor, a small two-seater coupe. Again, the car used off-the-shelf parts and engines but that didn’t mean it was some hodge-podge of junk. The turbo-four engine came out of the old Neon SRT-4 and was good for 250 horsepower and sub-six second zero to sixty times. It was also a proper rear-drive car with a six-speed manual gearbox. Like the M80, it had a low curb weight of 2,500 pounds, which meant that along with the four-banger engine economy would prove to promising. The styling was sharp-edged and had more than its share of Viper DNA, seriously cool. The price for all of this economy and performance? Dodge had a target of $14,500 in mind if a production version were to appear two years later in 2004. Adjust that price for inflation and it still only checks in at around $16,000 bucks. Why Chrysler didn’t choose to build the both of them is something I can’t quite figure out. They both offered great styling, performance, and economy and the M80 had great utility. The fact they both used proven, off-the-shelf parts meant that they were reliable and cheap to maintain. Sure, the M80’s four-wheel drive and the Razor’s two seats would’ve made the insurance premiums a little bit silly, but it’s easy to fix that. You just offer the M80 with two-wheel drive and bill the Razor as a commuter car — like Pontiac did with the Fiero — and give the base model a naturally aspirated engine (that would also drop the base price well below $16 grand). Problem solved. However, if vehicles like the Dodge Razor and Chevy Code130R concepts are evidence the small car market has to move beyond building stuff around the bland, tiresome Civrolla template to get us into showrooms, putting the two on a production line would only be the beginning. I understand not all of us want coupes, so that’s why automakers must build a small SUV or wagon and a small sedan — which would all showcase the same thinking behind the four Gen Y concepts — to compliment their versions of the Tru140S and M80. So to Chrysler I say dust off, revise, and build the Razor and M80 and to GM I say build the Code130R and Tru140S, just as long as you take a note from Chrysler and keep the prices cheap. Don’t ask questions, just get to work on them. If you start building cool, excellent-looking cheap small cars with outstanding hardware and specifications, I can guarantee my generation will finally find it's itself on the path to falling in love with cars. Not to mention we'll buy the living hell out of each one you offer. Dodge Razor concept View full article
-
G. Noble Editor/Reporter CheersandGears.com 28th February, 2012 It’s now official; the majority of my generation — Generation Y — has a deep-rooted dislike for the automobile. Unlike our parents from the Baby Boomer and Generation X age brackets, we no longer associate cars with our own independence. Instead, smartphones and laptops have become symbols of autonomy in my generation. I’ll admit that it didn’t exactly make sense to me when I first caught wind of it. I’m a ripe 21 years-old, which almost puts me smack dab in the middle of Generation Y, and I personally love cars. It’s always been that way since I discovered the ability to talk and walk. As a boy, I grew up flipping through old issues of Car and Driver and admiring photos of all the sheetmetal; I grew up traveling 70 miles one way between home and relatives about once every month. I grew up hanging out before and after school in the Chrysler service department where my mother once worked before the dealer was shut down for warranty fraud; I also grew up looking forward to my sixteenth birthday and getting my driver’s permit I also love driving, especially when I have an open stretch of road mostly to myself. I know it sounds like I’m just another massive petrol head, and that may be so. I’ll certainly never deny it. What I couldn’t understand was how I suddenly became a generational oddity overnight, someone who still viewed the car as one of the few ultimate forms of personal liberation. Along with the initial confusion came worry as well. There are around 76 million people that make up my generation, about three times the size of the preceding Generation X and pretty much the same size as the Baby Boomer generation. We make up a fourth of the U.S. population. The thought of well over half of my generation in total discord with the automobile could effectively mean that my hopes of a career in auto journalism would all be for naught. After all, our time as the leading generation is rapidly approaching and when the majority of the leading generation doesn’t bother with cars, that means no one will want to read or hear about them. That means I might as well hang it up. This news bothered me so much that, for the first time in a little while, I had to really sit down and examine the bigger picture, think in a new context. How did we go from personal transportation all the way down to personal electronics? (Cont. page 2) Apple's iPhone Sure, I own an iPhone and I can see how the level of peer-to-peer connectivity — contact anyone, anytime, anywhere either through a voice call, text message, or a social networking website — and information connectivity it offers on the fly would be hard to live without. I can also see how life without a computer would be hard to deal with. At the moment, having a personal laptop with internet access is essential to achieving my own career goals and its absence would make things difficult. On the other hand, talking over the phone or through Facebook wall comments are nothing like interacting with other people in the real world. On top of that, the increased and easily accessible connectivity those devices offer can sometimes lead to a decrease in privacy that ironically limits your freedom. When you have a device that anyone can reach you at all hours of the day in a billion different ways, there’s no denying you’re going to have days where people are constantly bombarding you and you’ll grow sick of it. At the end of the day, the only way you can really interact with friends and family is on a face-to-face basis in the real world, hopefully on your own terms. And what takes you into the real word from place to place on your own time and terms is none other than a car. Okay, yes I know only $60 will buy you an all-day city bus pass every day for a month in some places. Yes, that’s cheaper than paying for gas and insurance for a car that you don’t have a bank lien on. Yes, it can take you beyond your four walls and out into the real world the same way a car can. But taking the bus presents hassles in having to plan your entire day around a bus schedule and putting up with a big number of obnoxious morons who’d rather fight you than talk to you. And what if you live in a rural town? There typically isn’t any sort of mass transit to speak of and there’s a good chance it’ll probably never appear. Folks are usually too busy to let you hitch a ride somewhere, too. From there, I eventually reached an epiphany of sorts: it isn’t that anyone would rather stay at home and twiddle on Twitter constantly with their Droid. It isn’t that anyone would honestly rather take the bus. No, it’s really all about the concept of ownership as well as what you have to show for your money. I know the so-called analysts will tell you us Millennials (slang for Gen-Y) have what’s called a “fluid concept of ownership” — whatever the hell that means — and we care more about having access to something than owning it. Hmmm … you know, I don’t think that’s exactly right. (Cont. page 3) Which is better? The Toyota Corolla or a smartphone? Okay, sure we bog down our hard drives, smartphones, and iPods with music that we have no physical copies of and access what songs we don’t already have through free, ad-based internet radio services like Pandora and Last.fm. Yeah, we’d rather chuck out $10 a month to have Netflix instead of having to pay big bucks to clog a bookshelf up with BluRays and only have a fraction of the content to show for it. So what? I don’t think any of us would disagree that actually owning physical copies of our favorite albums and movies would be much more rewarding, but who can afford it especially when there are cheaper alternatives that are instantaneous and almost as reliable? The interactive experience of CD packaging simply isn’t worth the additional cost. That’s just entertainment, though; it’s an extra expense. If you’re basing our concept of ownership solely on that, well, you’re just a clueless, old bastard aren’t you? We still care about having something to call our own; it’s just that we’re very value conscious and prefer stretching our money. I’m actually starting to think it’s understandable we’ve latched onto smartphones and laptops as a majority. I mean, what gives you more bang-for-your-buck? An umpteen-thousand dollar Toyota Yaris or Corolla that looks like rubbish, drives like rubbish, and does absolutely nothing right? Or a few-hundred dollar hi-tech smartphone that can reliably call your girlfriend, order you pizza, and play your favorite song in the background all at the same time while you sit on the john? As much as it shocks and pains me to say it, you can put the latter on my credit card anytime, thanks. The smartphone certainly has more substance than a Toyota. It’s also safe to say by now it’s the more involving device and obviously cooler. You can say to someone with pride that you own an iPhone or a Droid RZR. You can’t do that with some cheap Toyota, or any other cheap small car for that matter. So, we’ve fallen out of favor with the car not because we hate them, it’s because there isn’t one single affordable new car out that’s compelling enough for us to try and go into debt for one and pay for the extra costs that comes along with it. We’re a generation that cares about specifications and most if not all affordable cars are unwholesomely boring and offer nothing of interest, not a single redeeming quality. As evidenced by a recent Edmunds article, some of us still yearn for top-drawer sports cars like Porsche 911s because anyone can see plain as day what it has to put on the table: good styling, great performance and hardware, and lust-worthy recognition. A $10,000 dollar Nissan Versa, which looks like a piglet with elephantitis and has about the same fuel economy and performance characteristics, is an obvious burlap sack in comparison. Like I said, my generation doesn’t pay good money for stupid junk with dismal hardware. We’d rather do things right the first time and put mere pennies aside and walk until retirement age to buy the 911 rather than have to drive the dumb little Versa. What I think or rather know would get my generation looking at cars again are small cars that can be had for a few thousand below the average small car price of $18,000 (that includes tax and other fees), something that you can pay $200 a month on, tops. It also has to have evocative styling and a big-dog attitude. It has to consume fuel at a dismal pace and be dead reliable. It has to be reasonably quick and great to drive. It has to be cheap as dirt to insure. This really isn’t asking for too much. Which small car out there ticks off all those boxes? I can’t think of a single one. And here’s what’s really worrisome — automakers know what they’ve gotta build to get us into showrooms but they aren’t building it. (Cont. page 4) Chevrolet Code130R concept At this year’s Detroit Auto Show, GM rolled out two small Chevrolet concept coupes with our generation set dead in their sights — the Code130R and Tru140S. The Code130R was designed as a modern day, American BMW 2002 for a buyer on a budget. It was also an awesome concept on paper spec-wise; low curb weight, rear-wheel drive, 40 mpg highway, six-speed auto or manual gearbox, and some decent utility. The Tru140S was designed to deliver the same visual experience as what you get from an Italian supercar and, arguably, it won more fans for its styling than the Code130R did. It too was very fuel efficient and had promised decent performance, never mind it was based on the Chevy Cruze. And because both concepts were powered by small four-cylinder engines, that would make them cheap to insure. These two concepts show that GM knows that our generation cares about hardware, about specs, and about good styling. More importantly, those two concepts are proof that the small car market is going to have to move beyond using the standard Civrolla template to attract buyers my age. With that said, the Chevys had a major shortfall — GM said that either car could come to market under $25,000 dollars. Never mind the cheap fuel costs and insurance premiums; the target price automatically makes them unobtainable. Let’s forget the Chevy fantasy-mobiles then. As cool as they might have been, they weren’t the first concept cars that targeted my age group. Instead, that distinction goes to Chrysler ten years ago and they managed to do things a little bit better. Chevrolet Tru140S concept (Cont. page 5) Dodge M80 concept pickup At the 2002 Detroit Auto Show, ChryCo rolled out two concepts cars, the Dodge M80 and Dodge Razor. The Dodge M80 was a small pickup truck. With its tough-looking exterior inspired by old Dodge Power Wagons, there’s no denying it looked seriously cool. It was also lightweight at just 2,500 pounds, which meant that, although it was equipped with a V6 engine good for 210 horsepower and sub-eight second zero to sixty times, it would prove to be economical. It was also designed to use off-the-shelf parts and cheap but durable materials to keep the price way, way down. It was also full of innovative storage and design features like side cargo box storage and a center console that doubled as a portable cooler. The same mentality was evident in the Dodge Razor, a small two-seater coupe. Again, the car used off-the-shelf parts and engines but that didn’t mean it was some hodge-podge of junk. The turbo-four engine came out of the old Neon SRT-4 and was good for 250 horsepower and sub-six second zero to sixty times. It was also a proper rear-drive car with a six-speed manual gearbox. Like the M80, it had a low curb weight of 2,500 pounds, which meant that along with the four-banger engine economy would prove to promising. The styling was sharp-edged and had more than its share of Viper DNA, seriously cool. The price for all of this economy and performance? Dodge had a target of $14,500 in mind if a production version were to appear two years later in 2004. Adjust that price for inflation and it still only checks in at around $16,000 bucks. Why Chrysler didn’t choose to build the both of them is something I can’t quite figure out. They both offered great styling, performance, and economy and the M80 had great utility. The fact they both used proven, off-the-shelf parts meant that they were reliable and cheap to maintain. Sure, the M80’s four-wheel drive and the Razor’s two seats would’ve made the insurance premiums a little bit silly, but it’s easy to fix that. You just offer the M80 with two-wheel drive and bill the Razor as a commuter car — like Pontiac did with the Fiero — and give the base model a naturally aspirated engine (that would also drop the base price well below $16 grand). Problem solved. However, if vehicles like the Dodge Razor and Chevy Code130R concepts are evidence the small car market has to move beyond building stuff around the bland, tiresome Civrolla template to get us into showrooms, putting the two on a production line would only be the beginning. I understand not all of us want coupes, so that’s why automakers must build a small SUV or wagon and a small sedan — which would all showcase the same thinking behind the four Gen Y concepts — to compliment their versions of the Tru140S and M80. So to Chrysler I say dust off, revise, and build the Razor and M80 and to GM I say build the Code130R and Tru140S, just as long as you take a note from Chrysler and keep the prices cheap. Don’t ask questions, just get to work on them. If you start building cool, excellent-looking cheap small cars with outstanding hardware and specifications, I can guarantee my generation will finally find it's itself on the path to falling in love with cars. Not to mention we'll buy the living hell out of each one you offer. Dodge Razor concept
