Values

Value is a very fluid concept. Is value to be measured in dollars or time? Most humans value freedom or peace, but could not place a fiscal sum on these ideas. There is even the generic construct of having values in order to be a good person. Value as an idea, therefore, is easily understood, but difficult to define. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography “I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.”

Wishing to steer clear of the endless bog of philosophy, I find the discussion of values fascinating. For instance, most people value gasoline higher than water, even though it is easy enough to find water that is many times more expensive than gasoline. If there were a few bottles of water rolling around in the floorboard of your car, you would happily throw them away just to rid yourself of the annoyance of detritus at your feet. Had it been an equal volume of gasoline, nobody would just toss it, bottles of gasoline would be valued as a fuel, and put to use as such. Ignoring for a moment the disturbing image of gasoline rolling around in the floor of your car, of the two, water is the much more valuable commodity. Gasoline has shockingly few uses, while water is essential to life. Why is gasoline valued more than water, even if it is less expensive? Maybe because water falls freely from the sky, or gurgles through pipes to fill your toilet, while gasoline must be purchased before it is even delivered by a rigid, precise metering dispenser. Water is a utility, over which nobody can muster much excitement. Gasoline, on the other hand, is quite literally potential energy. It could be a night out with your significant other, or a flight over the Grand Canyon, or even the beginning of a violent revolution to overthrow an evil dictator. Water is essential to life, was responsible for the development of the Homo sapien, is very fun to swim in, and yet is generally not considered a commodity worth getting excited about.

Water is not the only value we have all upside down and backwards. The values of classic cars can also be counted on for a bit of head scratching. A few years ago, classic cars were much more affordable than they are now. There were a few good Ferrari's in the $30-$40K range. Any old Asian coupe was cheap. Jeeps, Broncos, and Scouts were a dime a dozen. An Alfa Romeo GTV was a focal point of fear and loathing by mechanics and owners alike, and was certainly not considered a collectible. An air cooled 911 was easily accessible to anybody who could stand to be seen in it. Now nothing I mentioned above can be purchased for anything like reasonable money. Even the Jaguar XJS, the long suffering butt of many a Lucas ignition joke, has risen in value to the point it is not practical to restore one to drive any more. A prime example of the inexplicable trends of auto collecting is the Porsche / VW 914. The 914 was developed by VW in the late 60's, it had a VW engine and transmission, and was sold as a VW in most countries. Porsche contributed to the design, and sold the car as an entry level Porsche in the US. Until recently, a good 914 would bring $2-$4K while a basket case 914 was literally worthless. Now, the 914 is a collector car, bringing 10 to 100 times the money it would have only a few years ago. The car has not changed, but its value certainly has.

These trends leave me with a troubling choice. I prefer classics to modern cars, and until recently, could fiscally justify such a purchase. Now, not only has the purchase price risen, but my modifications would reduce the value of the finished car compared to an original restoration, resulting in a negative value double-whammy. If I wanted a classic now, it would be unwise to change it to suit my tastes.

I would enjoy a classic car, but my investment would equal or surpass many very neat modern cars. For instance, a decent MGB-GT can be found for $4-$6K, but would require another $5-$6K in restoration and modification to be a car I would enjoy. At that level of investment, a Mustang GT or Honda S2000 becomes available, neither of which would require restoration. Would I enjoy the restoration and use of the MGB-GT more than a Boxster S with some cool wheels, or a 2008 Bullitt Mustang? I truly do not know. I would like to think I am a purist, with noble intentions, and would save a MKII Supra before buying a used BMW, but is it practical to do so?

Maybe I should take a more enigmatic view on car value. It is very difficult to make a profit on cars, even though many people try. All modern cars depreciate, which makes it easy for me to purchase a modern Porsche Boxster S, for instance. Once a car has lost its initial value, depreciation levels off. Classic cars tend to hold value once they are at a certain point. Generally, a classic will lose less value over a given time period than a modern car, but will require considerably more maintenance, negating its value somewhat. Factor in the cost of modification, and it is actually more sensible to buy a modern car that has depreciated than create a car I really want. But what good does it do to purchase a modern car that I will never be satisfied with when I could build a car I will love for roughly the same money?

I suppose time will tell. For now, my little Honda is reliable and enjoyable. It is old enough to be considered a classic by my insurance company, and I like it.  I work too much to seriously consider restoring a car, so the purchase of any fun vehicle is being deferred until my circumstances change. I don't want to be one of those old men with a half finished classic in the garage. In fact, I don't want to be an old man at all, but some things can not be avoided.

Robocar

It has finally happened.  Technology has either made a significant leap forward to aid mankind, or Skynet just came online.  I learned this week about an Audi sedan that can drive around a racetrack faster than a regular guy.  Sure, the robot was a little slower than the race car driver there to defend humanity’s honor, but the only thing faster than a race car driver is another race car driver.  When the poor schmuck writing the article drove around the course it was a different story.  The robot was much faster than the journalist, and not because the guy was there representing Better Housekeeping.  This particular writer even has a racing license and a race car back home in the garage, and still the Audi driven by nobody was considerably faster around the course.  Maybe it just confirmed why this guy is a professional writer and not a professional racer, but it begs the question, are humans being surpassed by machines?  

Possibly, but I don’t think so.  The end of the world will not be heralded by a two ton Audi sedan.  The simple fact of the matter is that computers are much, much better at driving cars than people are.  They are not stymied by fog, glare, fatigue, distractions, or even darkness.  They don’t care that their latest tweet has been viewed 34,785 times, or that their hair needs tending, or that little Joey in the back just said his first word.  A computer remains focused on the task at hand no matter what tantalizing distractions are presented.  What truly separates computers from humans, besides the obvious squishy bits, is that they are only concerned with data.  Even things like smell, sight and sound are reduced to a string of ones and zeroes.  That is why, when the data has been properly fed into the German sedan in question (by a person, incidentally) it is able to analyze the data better than the average human performing the same task.  As a result, it takes a specially trained human race car driver, who has chosen to forgo things like personality, tact, or wit, to outperform the robot.

The conclusion seems simple, then.  Ride in the back seat and let Apple take the wheel, but I don't see anybody lining up to buy robot cars.  And not just because the Google car looks so stupid. The same is true with air travel.  The simple fact of the matter is that most flights today are made by computer, the pilot is there for PR and in case of computer failure.  But the computer never fails, while human pilots seem to stick aircraft in the ocean daily.  The main reason there is a pilot in the cockpit is because nobody would board a plane with no pilot.

Even though more than 90% of all automobile accidents are caused by human error, nobody is comfortable riding in a car without a driver.  In fact, the robot race car had a human behind the wheel, just in case something went wrong.  The idea of a two ton vehicle traveling in traffic at 70MPH with nobody in control makes most people nervous, but it's not because we don't mind automated things.  The only reason we have any problem with autonomous automobiles is because driving is a social task the general population is comfortable performing.  If something goes wrong, a human will evaluate the situation and react in a way that prevents injury to other human beings.  But the truth is the average driver is terrible at reacting properly in a crisis, while computers don't get all flustered and forget to counter-steer.   All new vehicles sold in America come with antilock brakes, stability control, and advanced tires, allowing computers to control as much as possible without actually driving the car.  Some new cars apply brakes and steer for you in case of an emergency, but you can still drive these cars into a lake if you wish.  Even with advanced technology fatal traffic accidents happen all the time, overwhelmingly due to an oversight by the driver of the vehicle and not due to some failure of hardware or software.  If we are truly concerned with robots performing tasks that may place people in danger, then no power plant, manufacturing facility, hospital, national defense agency, or space ship could exist.  Computers keep people alive and safe constantly, both directly and indirectly.  I welcome the coming digital chauffeur.

Why would I, a person who finds a simple automatic transmission repugnant, support the idea of autonomous vehicles?  Because people drive like crap.  They are more concerned with anything than driving.  I spend hours every day witnessing willful ignorance and waste that could be avoided simply by replacing the mouth breather behind the wheel with a computer.  Traffic jams would end, pollution would be reduced dramatically, and people would be much happier.  I am not diluted enough to suggest the only thing standing between mankind and utopia is a Google car, but removing the stress of the daily commute from people's lives would have to help, right?  

Of course there are already self driving cars out there, they are called taxis and buses.  The problem is that arriving at your destination in a taxi or bus does not impress anyone, while arriving in an Audi does.  As long as nobody arrives in a Maserati while you are standing beside your little German sedan, you can maintain an air of quiet superiority.  But the Maserati will probably not crank when it is time to leave the house, so that guy will be in a taxi, saving you the embarrassment of having the less impressive car.

Turkeys

On this day of thanksgiving I want to honor the turkey. I am not talking here about the avian that has been genetically engineered to the point that it can not stand in the rain without drowning, I am talking about the turkeys that automakers have tried to pass off as viable transportation.

 

We must get the most obvious model out of the way first.  The Pinto is biggest among turkeys not only because it was so poorly conceived and cheaply built that it was simply horrible to drive, but because it was deadly. Unlike the Corvair, whose instability was a result of innocent engineering oversight, Ford understood the dangers of the Pinto, and judged profits more valuable than human life. It puts the recent VW diesel scandal into some perspective. Truth be told, the Pinto engine is not all that bad, and the front suspension is one of the best to come from a domestic automaker. But all we remember is Henry Ford II’s choice to pay off claims from victims rather than fix the fuel filler neck. This alone places the Pinto in an unenviable position of top turkey.

No other cars in my list are quite so depressing, they are simply bad products. I am not going to include the Corvair on this list, because it was really a decent car. GM was making a sincere effort to produce an attractive, affordable car and fell victim to a lack of experience with swing axles. The later model Corvairs corrected the oversteer problems, but it was too late. Ralph Nader, the perennial green party candidate, had made a name for himself and was not going to fade into the background. Ever.

Luckily, Chevrolet replaced the Corvair with the Vega. I say luckily because just like the Republican presidential primary, it is so bad it gives me something to laugh about. The Vega was a great design, rivaling the Germans in sophistication. But due to the aforementioned problems with the Corvair, the Vega was rushed into production. Had there been only a few teething problems, all would have been forgiven. But as it turns out, it was entirely bad. The new aluminum engine destroyed itself from within, the suspension was made of linguine, the interior was covered in plastics that would make Mattel cringe, and the svelte body rusted to a pile of flakes on the showroom floor. When I was a kid finding a Vega that had floorpans was like spotting a unicorn. They didn't exist. And, in regular GM tradition, the Vega eventually became a great car, even with a Cosworth 16valve engine option, but by then nobody cared.

Italians must love thanksgiving, because so many of their cars are turkeys. Some of the most beautiful cars made have a strong whiff of rosemary and thyme to them. Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Maserati are internationally recognized symbols of fiscal prowess not because they are expensive to buy, but because they are expensive to own. Lancia, Fiat, and Alfa Romeo produce affordable cars, but they are still full of stuffing and gravy. The Alfa Romeo GTV is a stunning coupe smart enough for even James Bond to pinch when a quick getaway is required, but is so unreliable had it been sitting cold, 008 would have finally gotten his chance to be a real spy.  The Fiat 124 defined the sports sedan, unless you actually wanted to drive it, then your definition changed to BMW 2002. And Lancia, the nuttiest of all automakers, attempted a normal, sensible car with the Beta. Much like the Vega, had it just been for the rust, nobody would have cared. It was the pretty little coupe's propensity for violent explosions that eventually removed Lancia from our shores.

People can be turkeys, too.  Especially when they simply must name their car after themselves. John DeLorean, after successfully poking America in the eye with the Vega, decided the world needed his vision of a “safety car.” He somehow convinced Queen Elizabeth II to give him millions to open a factory in Ireland. A car made by the Irish seems to define quality and safety, at least to John DeLorean. Luckily the engine was to be made by Renault and the chassis by Lotus, two stalwart names in the automotive industry. A French engine in an English chassis assembled in Ireland. What could go wrong? As it turns out, almost everything. At least it was a slow and expensive car. Luckily, English cars never explode. That would require actual electricity to flow through the conductors. They tend to simply stop doing anything other than spill their fluids on the pavement, and the DMC was no exception. Sales plummeted, and to paraphrase Billy Preston, something from nothing leaves nothing. Not even the long established business practice of cocaine trafficking could raise enough capital to save the DMC. Had it not been for Marty McFly, nobody would remember the DeLorean.

Have a happy Thanksgiving, and enjoy the turkey.

Porn Magazines

I received my regular monthly installment of magazines recently.  For most of my life, these were porn.  Glossy images of unattainable beauties spread across the pages.  I should clarify immediately none of the magazines I read are filled with naked women, not that I find anything wrong with that.  The magazines I am talking about have names like Car and Driver or Road & Track or Top Gear.  The seductive photographs were of Ferraris or Lamborghinis or Jaguars.  When I was young, I would eagerly await the arrival of my eye candy each month, usually consuming the entire contents in a single sitting.  And I mean the entire contents from letters in the front to the tiny ads in the back for retread performance tires.

I learned a great deal from these magazines, from literary tools like caesura to the difference between desmodromic valves and valves with springs.  I even tried a set of those retreads on my old BMW once.  The words on the page had so much influence over me that I believed the Pontiac 6000 STE was a cool car, even with its goofy digital dash and rear beam axle.  Each month my (admittedly small) world was full of adventures to exotic places in special cars.

As the years have passed, I have grown less excited about the arrival each month of my “porn.”  It is not the fault of the magazines, it is just that I can’t find much interesting about the new F150 v/s Silverado article, or the fact that Bentley is going to make a Sports Utility based on the same chassis that is already used in the Cayanne, Tourag and Q7.  There is an article on the new Suburban, a Lincoln truck / wagon thing, a Range Rover Sport, and the Scion iM.  I could go to my grave happily without the knowledge of how Weathertech makes floor mats or the fact that a Honda Fit is reliable and economical.  But all these things are considered important enough to print.

There is a mildly interesting article on the Mustang GT350, and some downright pleasant reading about a few English cars on the Isle of Man, only slightly disrupted by several pictures of the jackolantern faced McLaren 650.  As always, the technical articles that open the magazine are through and entertaining, and the columnists can usually be counted on for an amusing car related yarn or two.

I am not sure which is to blame, me or the magazine.  Car and Driver was wrong about the 6000, it was a horrible car.  But I liked it because it was new, I was young, and the world held the promise of yet undiscovered riches.  Now that I am somewhat older, banal cars like the Scion iM or Ford F150 do not earn my attention.  New cars tend to be somewhat homogenized due to regulations, resulting in very few interesting designs.  Fitness trackers or phones are where the excitement is these days, and there are some amazing phones out there.

I love new cars like the Fiesta ST or Viper or even the Cayman GT4, despite the computer nannies and tons of air bags.  But I really like older stuff, cars that are light and simple like an E30 BMW or MKII Supra or C4 Corvette.  It is easy enough to find something cool and entertaining to drive.  There have been roughly one million 911’s made, about a million Corvettes, more than eight million Mustangs, and thousands and thousands of other neat cars that can be had (relatively) inexpensively.  They will not impress your neighbors as much as a new Lincoln truck / wagon thing, but will be considerably more fun to drive.  And, if you are lucky enough, they will be broken or unreliable enough to require you to work on them yourself.  There is no greater satisfaction than operating a machine you have fixed with your own hands.

Regulate This

 A scandal is afoot.  An impropriety against government regulations has been committed.  It has something to do with Congress, but may not be the standard corruption you might expect.  No favors have been traded, no emails erased, and no back room deals to worry about.  In this instance it is a simple case of cheating.  Congress is tasked with setting automotive regulations, everything from how headlights work to the number of sharp objects you can bump your noggin on.  Included in these regulations are restrictions on how many and what type of gasses can vented to the atmosphere.  These rules are very specific, and are there to protect the environment.  They have been improved over the years to the point that a 396 Chevelle SS sitting in the garage produces more emissions than a new Stingray traveling at 70MPH.  

Corporations being what they are, tools for making money, the rules are sometimes disregarded.  It was difficult to thwart the regulations when cars like the Chevelle had mechanical fueling and spark control.  That is why basically any car from about 1973 to 1985 sucked.  Computer technology was not up to the task of running an engine, so the regulations in place restricted performance.  As computers improved, performance returned with fuel injection and electronic ignition.  It was possible to make even more power than before, with less pollution and greater economy.  Things have progressed to the point that the latest four banger from Mercedes makes in excess of 355 horsepower, exactly as much as the Chevelle I mentioned above, while making very little pollution and achieving 31 MPG.

Regulations drive automakers to improve cars, but sometimes it is easier to just lie.  Back in the 1990’s Cadillac got into trouble for running two engine control programs in its Northstar V8, one that made much more power, and one that passed emissions.  The EPA, in an effort to make all things equal, does not run the air conditioner during random emission testing.  As soon as the EPA technician turned off the climate control, the car switched to the engine management program that met regulations.  Eventually GM was found out and paid a fine, not the first EPA fine levied against the auto giant.

Way back then, in the early days of Yahoo and AOL, automotive computers were considerably more simple.  GPS, stability control, variable valve timing, direct injection, and drive by wire did not exist.  Using something like the air conditioner to change engine programs was effective and simple to implement.  In the modern computerized world, something so simple would be discovered.  As a result, if an automaker feels the need to cheat, they must be more cunning.  

The scandal part is easy to understand with this background.  Computers control cars, making them efficient, powerful, reliable, and extremely complex.  The EPA uses computers to test cars, ensuring uniform data.  So, if one computer is testing another computer, how hard would it be to have the computer being tested recalibrate the engine to pass?  Evidently not hard at all.  So far, VW and BMW have been found to use sophisticated programs to alter engine control when a vehicle is being tested, but when the same vehicle is driven by a human, the engine produces too much NOx.

The problem is limited to diesel cars, which are closely regulated.  VW sold about half a million cheater cars over four years.  There is no word yet on how the non-polluting calibration will affect the car, but there will be a negative effect, or the cars would have been made correctly in the first place.  BMW is in the same situation with its diesels, and I am sure we will find Mercedes, Porsche (how weird is it that there is a diesel Porsche?) Chevrolet, Jeep, and Audi all have problems meeting regulations once they have all been tested.

It is a real shame, because Diesel cars represent true economy and ecological responsibility.  They can achieve the EPA rated fuel mileage (unlike a hybrid that works in the lab but not on the road,) are better to drive, less expensive to buy and own, and have more power than any hybrid.  They are even more ecologically sound considering how damaging battery production is to the environment.  

Besides, diesel cars are not going to poison your town.  There are not that many offending cars out there, all things considered.  I am in no way defending VW, they knew the rules and used cunning to circumvent them.  But the sky is not falling because your neighbor has a VW that rattles and puffs a little black cloud when he leaves the driveway.  All new cars have very low emissions, even the offending diesels.  I support regulations that ensure our environment is protected because without them car companies would never regulate themselves, and consumers would not pay thousands of dollars for emissions equipment.  

Automakers will fix this problem and continue to do everything they can to sell cars, including cheat on regulations when they can get away with it.  Eventually we will have autonomous pods that run on fuel cells with hydrogen derived from solar energy.  Until then we have to do the best we can, using resources responsibly and regulating industry to protect our environment.  But freaking out about diesel cars is not the best way forward.

Opinions are like…

I think the Lamborghini Huracan is not as good as the McLaren 650S. The truth of my statement is under debate, and has nothing to do with reality. The Lamborghini may be a better car, but that is not the point.  The point is that we hold opinions on things in which we have no experience. I have never driven a McLaren or a Lamborghini, so I can not say which one is better.  I have never even ridden in a Ferrari, Aston Martin, Bugatti, Maserati, Pagani, Koenigsegg, Nissan GTR, Shelby Cobra, Viper, Lotus, or almost any car that can be found posterized on a boys bedroom wall.  I have seen them, touched them, heard them run, but I have no experience beyond a spectator at a sporting event. Yet I have opinions on every car I have mentioned. Unqualified opinions? Possibly, but I can offer some insight on why I hold the opinions I so easily shove down my reader's throats.

If you want to know about football, don't ask me. All I know is a home run is worth seven points. Cars, on the other hand; not to put too fine a point on it, but I have studied cars for a long, long time. I am no engineer, and I don't even play one on TV. Regardless, I have a rudimentary understanding of Newtonian physics, and I have experience driving as many different kind of cars as I can get my hands on. This allows me to make intuitive leaps that are based on hard evidence. Automakers spend millions developing cars to be pleasing to the customer. Part of that development is in driving dynamics.  I base my opinions on my perception of a car’s driving dynamics more than any other trait.

At the risk of being boring, how a car drives can be closely linked to where the engine is located and which wheels get the power. Driving a Porsche 911 feels very different than driving a Honda Civic. The feelings some 911 drivers experience have nothing to do with the emotions that may arise from driving a car that most people can't afford. That is petty overcompensation for some other shortcoming in the owner’s life. The feeling I am talking about is separate from emotion. It is the interaction of varied and complex forces on your inner ear as a result of control inputs and opposing reactions.

Surprisingly, we all have the equipment to evaluate this sensation, it is called your butt-o-meter. A Honda Civic, even a Si, is not all that fast. Under hard acceleration or turning the front wheels skitter across the pavement, fighting for traction because they are responsible for most of the acceleration and turning at the same time. The driver of this car’s butt-o-meter would register disappointment, understanding somewhere in the caveman part of the brain that energy is being lost, partially as a result of weight transfer from the front to the rear of the car. A Porsche 911 on the other hand will light up your butt-o-meter like few things will. The 911 is unique among cars because it is a very fast car that carries its engine in the back, out behind the rear wheels. I will admit this is not necessarily the best place for ultimate performance, but it makes the car feel “special.” Weight transfer presses the rear wheels harder into the pavement when a 911 accelerates, and creates a slight pendulum effect at the rear of the car when cornering. Any rear drive car is more satisfying to drive than a front drive car, but the 911's rear weight bias pegs the butt-o-meter during most maneuvers due to this slight pendulum effect. Acceleration, braking, and turning seem to happen somewhere just aft of your right elbow, instead of out at the front bumper.  It is vastly more challenging to drive a 911 fast than to drive a Civic fast, but it is also considerably more satisfying when you get it right, and markedly more exciting when you get it wrong.

So why, then, do we even care about these type of cars when a Civic is adequate, even nice to drive?  Because Porsches, Ferraris, Lamborghinis and the like dare to approach the limit of human ability.  I have opinions about cars I have never even seen, and I spend time building those opinions with research and speculation based on my personal experience and the experience of people I trust.

To paraphrase the Avett Brothers, I will continue to talk on things I don’t know about.  Just because I do not have the experience of driving some of the cars I write about doesn’t mean I haven't the right to form an opinion on them, and to force you to know my opinion.  And besides, everybody has an opinion.

Get Lost

In my younger years (how depressing is it that I am old enough to make that statement) I made a habit of getting lost.  I have a pretty good sense of direction, so getting lost was completely intentional.  Most of the time it was in a car, occasionally it was on foot. For instance, in St Maxime, France I bumbled into a street festival once. The women were beautiful, and the eclairs weren't bad either. Wondering how close I could get to Virginia without leaving the Outer Banks, I became stranded on a sandbar and had to spend the night in my Bronco, waiting for low tide to drive back down the coast the next morning. I even found the neighborhood I now live in completely by accident.

It is almost impossible to get lost now-a-days. Google Maps makes traveling infinitely safer, easier, and cheaper than ever before.  It knows every construction delay, traffic jam, and speed camera.  GPS technology is amazing. When I leave my normal service area to work on a machine, it is very comforting to have that lady in a box that knows how to get there. I can focus on the road instead of the directions. It is safer and easier to travel now, but the sense of adventure has been lost.

Having to pay attention to where you are creates situational awareness that is absent when you are just waiting for the nice lady to tell you where to go, but Google needs to know your intentions in order to guide you. What if your intentions are to simply “go?” You can’t thwart Google that easily.  It will catch up, offering suggestions as you travel. It is handy when you need gas or a McDonald's, but what if you want real food, or to find that house surrounded by a million Christmas lights all year long? There are many sources for user submitted reviews and even books of interesting things to find along the road. But whose interest does Google+, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Habbo, or Linkedin serve? Like a Congressional Subcommittee, their only goal is to remain in existence. They intend to help you make good decisions, but they can make you complacent. Is a place mediocre if you think it is, but the reviews are great?  Mediocrity is rampant, no matter how many stars the Cinnamon Dolce Latte earns.  What does Bob985671 know about coffee, anyway?

Boy Scouts never get lost. What a horrible life they must live. I have found many wonderful things not looking for them. What would happen if you simply took a left out of your driveway and didn't plan where you were going. Shut down the GPS and phone (usually the same device) and drive until you don't recognize anything around you. It is time to disconnect and fill the tank, both spiritually and fluidly. You might even find that house surrounded by hundreds of stuffed panda bears.

Of course some of the adventure is lost when you realize it doesn't matter where you go, to get back home just fire up that smart phone. It is only too willing to get you to your destination, and find the trendiest place to eat on the way.

Unfinished Business

At least 60% of my brain activity is devoted to automotive projects.  Restoring or modifying my car, researching cars for friends, or just looking at what is available for reasonable money.  It is not unusual for me to focus my attention on a particular car, a MKII Toyota Supra for instance.  I figure out what decent ones cost, what restoration would be required, and what modifications would be fun and unusual.  I may never resto-mod a Supra, but I have a pretty good idea what it would take to accomplish the task.  In the process of researching possibilities, I run across people that are actually doing the things I am thinking about.  As luck would have it, people love to work on their cars, and more importantly, talk about what they are doing to their cars.  There are many very talented craftsmen out there turning their ideas into reality.  Porsches with LS7’s in them, Factory Five 818 or Stalker kit cars, VW Dune Buggies with turbo Subaru engines, old Volvo wagons with various engines, Miatas with Honda V6 power, even electric MR2’s.  These are all cars I love and can be built by a person without any fabrication skills.  Of course there are the totally custom builds that do not use any kind of standard parts (besides a car and an engine) like the Volvo Amazon with a BMW turbo engine and Skyline driveline, or a completely homemade off road buggy.  With enough effort, almost anything is possible.

Therein lies a problem.  Effort is a sparse commodity, it seems.  Automotive forums are full of interesting projects that never come to fruition.  About 75% of the projects I read about stall at that point when real work is required.  It is easy, even fun to search for the car, get the parts, make the plans, but when the garage is full of metal and glass and plastic that could become a car, many people lose interest.  It takes real, hard, tedious work to build or rebuild a car.  It is much easier to just buy a new one.  In this case, no work (other than the soul-crushing, mind-numbing work that you do every day) is required to turn greenbacks into transportation.

Sometimes it is simply that a project is too ambitious.  Accomplishment would require more time, energy, or money than is available.  In addition, the project is always a hobby.  It is not the primary or even secondary form of transportation, so there is no sense of urgency to complete the project.  Ever.  In fact, it is easier to just get rid of this hot rod thing taking up space in the garage.  Why would anybody want a hot rod anyway?

Because they are freakin’ cool.  Don’t get into a position where the only practical end is to simply end the project.  Be realistic.  If you don’t have a garage, lift, welder, upholstery sewing machine, tubing bender, paint shop, parts cleaner, an unlimited budget, years of restoration experience, and three helpers, then you are just like me.  I know not to get into a Jaguar restoration right now, which would require all the things I listed above.  Instead, I modified my CR-V.  It still has the same engine, radio, and interior installed in Japan all those years ago.  I never planned to install a massive stereo, or cut the roof off, or swap in the driveline from an Evo, even though I have researched the feasibility of such changes.  That would be too ambitious right now.  Regardless, I love the car.  It reminds me that I am an able human with ideas and the ability to express them.  A mildly modified car in good shape is so much more enjoyable than that garage full of crap that will never be anything but an aggravation to your family, who want to roller skate in there.

The Unexpected

I appreciate the unexpected. Girls with green hair, or good vegetarian food, or an Audi not tailgating are all somewhat unexpected, but happen from time to time. Of course stepping in dog poo is also unexpected, but I have less appreciation for that. Many things in life are necessarily predictable. Hot water from the left tap, gas pumps that shut off automatically when the tank is full, and working WIFI at Starbucks are all things we can count on. The world would be a frightening, hostile place if, for instance, McDonalds ran out of french fries. Sometimes, though, it is refreshing to experience something different.

I especially like it when cars are unexpectedly neat some way. Like a Volvo Amazon wagon that is faster than a Ferrari, or a rat rod made from various parts, including old tractors and home appliances. In every case somebody has taken something mundane and changed it into something unique. It is usually at great financial peril to the craftsman, generally his investment will never have a return. This kind of thing it is hardly ever done for the ROI, however. Rare and original cars have fiscal value, common modified cars have none, usually because the people that like cars like this are able to build it themselves. Lifted jeeps, Cafe racer motorcycles, SR20 powered Nissan 240SX, or Honda hatches with monster VTEC motors spring immediately to mind. Nobody would buy a JDM swapped 240SX, but a decent original car with no modifications is almost impossible to find.

Those more common of uncommon vehicles are neat, and are easy enough to accomplish, considering it has all been done before and is well documented on the internet. I tend to look for the more unique projects. Cars where the accepted use of the vehicle has been changed. Lifted, off road all wheel drive Golfs, or Smart Cars with Hyabusa engines, or Volvo C303 motorhomes. Cars that make you question what is possible.

Lately, people have even taken to making even the rare, valuable cars into something more. Old Mustangs and Camaros with autocross quality suspension. Muscle cars that can also go 'round corners. Instead of reducing the value, these cars tend to sale for hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's six figures before the decimal. And I am not even going to talk about the Singer Porsche or Eagle Jaguars. That is in a whole other universe.

The point is that as we move away from the automotive age and cars become less interesting, people are starting to find interest in old or unique cars, and not just as an investment. There is a growing interest in cars that are inherently more attractive than new cars fitted with mechanicals that allow them to rival new car performance. It is not inexpensive or easy, but it sure makes the world more interesting.

Vacation

Looking at the accepted meanings of words can prove pointless. Noting something is cool, for instance, may have nothing to do with its thermal properties. In fact, many things are cool and hot at the same time. Stating that a certain motorcycle is bad is usually a complement. Everybody knows word connotations are in flux, often representing the inverse of the literal meaning of the word. But some words are inflexible. The words work and vacation fall into that category. Their meaning is not in question, and they are antonyms. Work is what you do to have food, clothing, and lodging. Vacation is what you do to get away from work for a while so that you can continue working. In fact, you must have permission from your work to take vacation. Otherwise it is known as quitting.

I enjoy my job as much as a person can. The task itself is engaging, the people I encounter are my friends, the benefits are adequate, and the pay is exceptional. I feel valued, and I contribute to the lives around me. Even though I don't mind the work I perform every day, every now and then I need a break. Sometimes I don't want to get in my service van and go fix a machine. I want to stay home and fix a machine.

It may seem counter-intuitive to want to perform the very same tasks on my vacation that I perform at my job, but that is exactly what I intend to do. Of course, I don't perform the same exact tasks. At my job I fix industrial robots. I do not have an industrial robot at home, but I have a car, and I find great pleasure in working on it.

My neighbors think I have an old car that is constantly broken, because I work on it from time to time. They walk over and ask what I am doing. Replacing ball joints, shocks, springs, bushings, CV boots, sway bar links, and undercoating was the answer last summer. Usually they just walk away with their hearts full of pity that I have to do this kind of thing myself. I try to explain that I enjoy doing this kind of thing, that I find great pleasure in maintaining and modifying my little old car, but I am unable to convince them.

I love the whole process of summer car maintenance. I plan the work, gather the materials, and make a schedule. This year it is going to be brake pads, new slotted and drilled rotors, cam belt, all fluids, and Plasti Dip.  Working on my car is the culmination of many hours of thought, research, and planning. It allows me to put into action things I have been thinking about. It is greatly fulfilling, and allows me to do the other things in life that are less enjoyable without stress.

Work as vacation. What's next? Eating vegetables because you like them, or choosing to exercise for fun? Crazier things have happened.

Defining the Undefinable

What makes something cool?  It seems easy to define, because we all know what cool is.  Steve Mcqueen was cool.  Ed Sullivan was not.  Between the two, Ed Sullivan made decisions that had an impact on every young person in the country, defining what was cool.  While Steve Mcqueen made a few good movies, he had neither the influence or the power to affect the masses as Ed Sullivan did.  But he was cool, and people tended to imitate him because of it.  

Personalities lend themselves to comparison, and some fall in the cool division.  Cars are the same way.  A Jeep Wrangler is cool, while a Ford Taurus is not.  Both are about the same money, and both will accomplish exactly the same thing most of the time.  The difference is that the Jeep allows us to imagine climbing a mountain to some wonderful vista, while the Taurus allows us to imagine what car we can get when this lease is up.  In real terms, the Taurus is better at everything a car does than the Jeep.  It is faster, more economical, considerably more comfortable, and friendlier to the environment than the Jeep.  Jeep owners buy Jeeps instead of vanilla sedans, not because they are good transportation, but because they are cool.

The same holds true for almost any uncomfortable, unreliable, expensive to maintain vehicle out there.  The Land Rover Defender, one of the worst forms of transportation ever devised, is so cool that people are willing to break the law in order to have one.  An old diesel Mercedes is not a stinky, slow, noisy, unrefined beast of a car, it is an eco-chick magnet.  Any Alfa Romeo is not a rats nest of electrical problems held together by cheap Russian steel, it is a passionate Italian automobile.

Not all terrible cars are cool, but almost all cool cars are terrible somehow.  Well designed, comfortable, economical cars represent compromise.  They are good at most things, while not excelling at anything.  That is not cool.  Jeeps and Land Rovers will never be used off road, but their owners pay for the unused capability without complaint.  Sports cars are not driven any faster than other cars, but they are loved by the people that have them.  Pickup trucks never haul anything, but they outsell cars by a magnitude of 5-1.  Simply making a car less good at being a car does not make it cool, but a vehicle that has some focus on a lifestyle can be cool.  Adventurous or powerful or sleek or even gizmo laden can be cool, while simply competent transportation is boring.

We can’t forget that cars are made by people, and we are creative.  Every now and then a decision is made to create a car that is less good at being a car, but a little better at being fast, or rugged, or just beautiful.  Thank goodness.

The Adorable Jeep

Many adjectives describe cars. As an automotive writer, I live in the land of hyperbole, it is the only thing that makes cars interesting. Without adjectives, most every car would be simply “adequate,” but some cars punch a nerve way down in the brain. One of the nerves left over from the time when mankind was not at the top of the food chain. Cars like the Lamborghini Countach revive the fight or flight senses long dormant in our psyche. It is at the same time menacing and beautiful. In fact, the word Countach is an expletive used to convey a sense of startled astonishment or wonder, sometimes with an undertone of slight concern. Its menacing yet beautiful nature is conveyed with the very name of the car.

Sports cars can be described with words like “cool,” or “mind blowing,” or “telegraphic” when no automobile is capable of operating without producing heat, is completely rooted in pedestrian mathematics which is the very opposite of mind blowing, and can not send a coded message down a copper wire. Automotive adjectives can personify a quality unrelated to the actual meaning of the word, rather they convey an idea about an object that is, lets face it, otherwise quite ordinary. The passion of an Alfa Romeo, the precision of a Lexus, the placidity of a Rolls Royce. Most cars can be described with a word that may not be truly representative of the car, but is generally accepted as accurate.

Jeeps can be described with many adjectives. Jeeps are rugged, capable, and unrefined. They are “trail rated,” equipped with roll bars, named after rivers in northern Italy, and have solid axles made by guys in New Jersey. However, my adjective list is inadequate, because there is now a new Jeep that is neither rugged or unrefined. The Jeep Renegade, a fitting name since it does not conform to any established ideas of a Jeep, is adorable. It is as different from a Wrangler as a hot dog is from a hound dog. The Renegade is based on the Fiat 500, and adorable car. The precious round headlights, the pinched vertical grille, the square tail lights with a big X in them, the silhouette of a WWII jeep screen printed on the wheels. Lovable as a pug puppy.

I'm not sure I want an adorable Jeep. I understand CAFE requirements, safety standards, and the need to produce products profitably. Even the Wrangler has softened over the years, literally. It somehow has power windows now. My Wrangler had somewhat transparent plastic and zippers. It also had a suspension that separated poorly executed dental work from your scull. Judging by the people I see in new Wranglers, that is not the case any more, but it is evidently still too much for many. Enter the adorable Jeep. “Surprisingly capable” is what the writers say about it. Surprising because it looks like a “Chevron Car,” unable to traverse a speed bump without breaking something expensive.

The Renegade is a product required by regulations, built for profitably, and wanted by consumers; which suits me fine. If people continue to buy cars like the Renegade, Jeep will be able to build more serous cars like the Wrangler Recon concept. Jeep is a part of Fiat now, and its products must necessarily be related to Fiats. At least we don't have to worry about the horrible Compass or Patriot (based on the Dodge Neon) any more.

Fortunetelling

I just realized a strange thing.  I have spent the last several years writing about cars, forcing the people I know to read these musings.  These early articles are what inspired me to start this blog.  I intend to publish these previous writings on this blog, and have been looking through them in an effort to determine if any light shines from the words.  As it turns out, my facts and figures are now wrong.

One article, written three years ago about what cars could be purchased for about the price of a new Camry, is now off the mark.  I stated you could find a Ferrari 348 for about $30,000.  I know you could, because I checked when writing the article.  Now there is NO Ferrari that can be purchased for anywhere around $30,000.  OK, possibly a Mondial, but that doesn't count.  Nobody wants to buy a Mondial.  The cheapest 348 I can find right now is about $50,000, they average about $65,000.

I stated you could get an Acura NSX for the same $30,000.  I found one for sale at $35,000, but it was not a nice car.  The average price is more like $50,000.  I had offered a Porsche 911 for Camry money.  While a 996 can be had for $15,000, every other 911 is much more expensive than any Camry.  No running air cooled 911 can be found for less than $40,000.  I finally came to the conclusion that a Lotus Esprit would be the best $30,000 car.  As it turns out, the Lotus has not skyrocketed like the other examples.  An Esprit SE can be found in the price range of a new Camry, but it is the worst possible Esprit.  And that is quite a statement, like finding the worst kind of country music, or the worst kind of cancer.

My premise was that a very neat car could be purchased for the same money people were comfortable spending on a vanilla sedan.  As it happens, that pool of cars has thinned to a puddle.  Why is the same car worth twice the money only three years later?  The only explanation I can offer is it seems the economy has recovered to the point that cheap supercars are disappearing.  People feel confident enough to spend money on things they didn't in 2012.  Had I followed my own advice, I could have reaped a $40,000 profit.  It doesn't make me feel as if I missed an opportunity, though.  I would have a very hard time buying a car as in investment.  I invest much more than money in a car.  I don't buy anything I don't really want, I connect with my cars, and I don't let them go easily.  My next car will be a 996 model Porsche 911.  With a car like that, I will never sell it, even though newer, faster, “better” 911's are made every day.  A few modifications and some maintenance and I have bonded with the car, like my little Honda.  I doubt I will ever sell my CR-V, to me it is irreplaceable.

I do not care what anybody thinks of my car, so spending money on a Ferrari because everybody knows it is a Ferrari, or because it may appreciate in value leave me cold.  I love a Ferrari because of its uniqueness, its purity of intention, its passion, and if I could pay for one I might consider the purchase.  I would buy one to drive it, and that would ruin its value.  And my checkbook, I'm sure.

A Case for the Slightly Ugly 911

What is wrong with the Porsche 996? It is a true supercar, with the ignition key on the left side of the dash like a LeMans racer, its tachometer is in the middle of the cluster, four pot brakes, a stiff, lightweight chassis, a horizontally opposed engine, a six speed stick, and a massive wing that folds into the rear decklid. I can’t find the flaw, but I must be wrong, because everybody else in the world hates it.

Porsche is known for making superb sports cars. Porsche has a successful factory backed racing program with forays into Formula One, endurance racing, and the WRC, and that technology translates directly to their production cars. Porsche invented the modern sports car with the 959, using all wheel drive and computers to bend the laws of physics. Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, and James Dean were Porsche guys. So how can this company, who has a fan base larger than Adel, create a product that is universally hated?

The reason the 996 is not loved is due to the way it was made. The company was in trouble in the early 90’s. The recession had weakened the company to the point of insolvency. Their products were universally lauded, but Porsche was hardly profitable. Even if Porsche had been able to make cars as easily as tacos, the market was changing. The United States, the largest car market in the world, had moved on from sports cars to sports utilities, which further depressed Porsche sales. In an attempt to remain in business, Porsche turned to Toyota, the worlds most stable auto maker, for advice.

The Boxster and 996 model 911 were the first products of the "new" Porsche.  As a result, Porsche guys saw the 996 as a Toyota, not special enough to be a 911, especially since it used the same front end as the less expensive Boxster. The 996 used the same suspension and transmission as the last air cooled 911, but had a new body, engine, and interior. Porsche guys liked their 911's because they could feel superior to every body else.  A Porsche guy could pilot a 911 without crashing it, but they could also turn on the radio or air conditioning or open the sunroof. All tasks which escape the ability of normal humans. The 996 made the 911 accessible to anybody that could write a check. And many checks were written. Without the Boxster, Cayenne, and 996, Porsche would be an interesting chapter in automotive history, not the most profitable car manufacturer in the world.

So why can I get a Porsche supercar for less money than the Pokemon on wheels known as the Chevrolet Spark? Because guys like me have been banging on for years that the 996 is ugly and unreliable. The truth is the car is as reliable as any other European car of the same vintage, and the headlights can be modified with a cheap set of headlight covers. Sure, it is not as attractive as a 1973 911RS, but not many things are, and owning an air cooled Porsche has left the realm of possibility for most enthusiasts. The 996 was popular enough, common enough, and had enough reliability issues that it has succumbed to depreciation.


The idea of daily driving a practical supercar is very appealing. I am sure that is why Porsche sold every one they could make back in the early 2000's. Purpose built supercars like the 911 or Ferrari F355 or Lamborghini Gallardo are necessarily different than regular cars. The focus is on performance, no matter what the cost. Most cars focus on the cost, no matter what the cost. The fact that I can consider owning a car like this is quite intoxicating. I would not suggest that just anybody buy a 996, they are more maintenance intensive than the Chevy Spark and if you are not able to perform some of the work yourself, any savings from buying cheap will quickly disappear in maintenance costs.

My plan would be to find a well maintained base 996, install the upgraded IMS bearing with a new clutch, check all valvetrain components and plastic engine parts, slap on a new set of shocks and brake pads, and of course cover those admittedly ugly headlights. With proper maintenance and upgrades, the 996 will last forever. They are high quality vehicles, no matter what the internet tells you. Not that I want the unimpressed scriveners out there to quit making fun of the 996, that just keeps them cheap for those of us that know better.

The Corvette Conundrum

The Chevrolet Corvette is America's sports car. That is to say it is the only American car that does not serve any purpose other than to go fast. The Corvette has always been fast, thanks in large part to its comparatively large engine. Even in the dark ages of the late 70's when GM managed to strangle the Small Block down to 165HP in an effort to comply with emission regulations, the Corvette was as fast as any proper sports car of the day. In fact, the recent ZR1 holds the tenth fastest lap time ever for a production car at the Nurburgring. Is the Corvette the best sports car in America? There are certainly many choices from other manufacturers, but nothing in its price range approaches the performance of the Corvette.

Simple logic pushes one to wonder why anybody would pay an arm, leg, kidney, spleen, and most of a lung for a 911 or GT-R or F-Type when all the performance could be had for the cost of only a few fingers and toes with a Corvette? The answer is simpler than I would like to admit. It comes down to the fact that a 911, GT-R or F-Type is a much better car than the Corvette. I can appreciate the clarity of intention a Corvette represents, but the fact remains that massive power, acceleration, and roadholding, exclusive of any refinement, do not a car make. Surgeons do not use sledgehammers.

GM's laser focus on cheap speed has created a car that is very hard to live with. Every now and then you just need to get to the drug store for some Preparation H, and the prospect of using a Corvette would make some of us suffer in silence. The transmission is usually an automatic with the reaction times of a glacier. If it is not an automatic, pulling the shifter from gear to gear is as satisfying as coitus interruptus. The interior is made of materials Mattel would be ashamed of. The seats are at the same time too soft to hold you in spirited driving, and too hard to be comfortable for a long trip. The body, made of the same plastic as a cheap laptop, buzzes, groans, rattles, and causes paint to crack. The Bose stereo, while loud enough to drown out the squeaks and jangles, has the same blue digital display your microwave had in 1993. The rear hatch will not shut with the windows up. The front and rear bumpers look good, but are made of a material closely related to linguine noodles. The Corvette is not even as nice to be in as a VW Golf. I am not saying the 911 or GT-R is perfect, but it doesn't embarrass you when it is your turn to drive the boss to lunch. The Corvette is never going to be as nice as a 911, but it could be as good as a Honda or Subaru. GM understands this, and as a result has stopped making the plastic fantastic Corvette.

Not to say GM's Bowling Green facility has fallen into a sink hole. The hills of Kentucky echo again with the song of a high strung Chevy small block. The Stingray has been resurrected. Sure, it is still a Corvette, but it shares nothing in common with recent Corvettes. To begin with, it is stunning. As attractive as an F-Type or 911 and considerably more fetching than the awkward looking GT-R. In fact, it compares favorably with Aston Martins and Maseratis. The interior is made of high quality materials, the unpleasant sheen of cheap plastic conspicuously absent. The standard seats are both supportive and comfortable, while the sports seats are simply unbelievable. The infotainment system is GT-R level. The rear hatch will close. The switchgear is not lifted directly from a cargo van. Refinement, a word never associated with Corvettes, is abundant in the new Stingray.

The Stingray is one of those rare cars that is both satisfying at rest and in motion. The only problem with the new Corvette is that every over tanned, gold chained empty nester with an old Corvette will want to talk to you about how wonderful your cars are. It is probably a good idea to just agree with him on your way out of the gas station.