GM Slowly Coming To Their Senses?

GM Inside News is saying that there are division closures on the horizon for the company.

With Hummer on the auction block, it has apparently come down to GMC or Pontiac. While I applaud a move towards what was obviously necessary years ago, namely to get rid of a division or two, are these really the two that should be axed?

Of course not.

First, let's deal with the GMC nameplate. There are obvious advantages to getting rid of it- the entire lineup is essentially rebadges of Chevy products, and the truck market is slowing to a standstill. However, in my opinion, GMC provides GM with a perfect fleet work truck outlet- a market that wants base model trucks with interiors that can be hosed down and mechanicals that can be used for what they were intended. What's stopping GM from selling GMC trucks solely to fleet, and saving upper trim level trucks (ie. Silverados and Colorados) for the average buyer? Absolutley nothing. By getting rid of GMC, they would in effect alienate a still large chunk of buyers.

On the surface, Pontiac would appear to be far more ripe for pruning. No real retail volume hits, and an increasingly confused strategy- is the company about RWD sporty vehicles or SUVs or FWD milquetoast sedans? Who knows at this point. The pluses to getting rid of Pontiac are many- the negatives at this point are very similar to the Oldsmobile situation. In light of all that, Pontiac is NOT the brand that should be axed. It fits in perfectly with Buick in a shared dealership environment, assuming Buick moves beyond the blue haired crowd to become a reasonable near luxury alternative again, and Pontiac moves towards the more sporting side of the ledger. A Pontiac/Buick dealership with a small/medium/large lineup of RWD true sports sedans and the Solstice and a medium/large/CUV lineup of Buick vehicles would be perfect.

The brands that are obvious axe nominees are Saab and Saturn. The good thing about Saab is that someone will buy the company if GM sells it. The good thing about Saturn is that it can be shuttered somewhat painlessly with a far smaller dealer network, and the lessons learned can be transferred to other GM dealerships (no haggle at ALL GM spots? hmm). Plus, the current neglected by the mass market Saturn lineup could immediately be inserted into the Chevy lineup with little pain and much gain.

The solution is obvious. Will it be obvious to GM?

No Words Necessary

Obvious Statement Is Obvious

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080512/FREE/493800689/1530/FREE

Over the past 15 months, Saturn has launched a complete line of vehicles including the Aura sedan, which won 2006 North American Car of the Year. Yet Saturn sales are down 15.4 percent through April.

Let's see. An entirely new lineup. Every single car and SUV replaced with a new better model. Better quality. Better performance. Better everything. More overall models available in the lineup. And sales are down 15%. Isn't it amazing? Isn't this exactly what everyone with half a brain said would happen? The Aura continues to flounder. The Outlook is only going to see sales descend further once the Chevy Traverse hits the public. The Sky is niche and and will always have limited sales.

Who thought this was a good idea? Imagine if every single one of these vehicles was given to Pontiac, Chevy or Buick to help revitalize lineups that actually matter in the grand scheme of things? Already in a position where the margin for error is very small, GM keeps making errors, wasting money, and wasting vehicle launches.

The Cadillac Conundrum

GM has a problem that goes beyond product when it comes to Cadillac. The problem is that Cadillacs are sold in the same showrooms as Cobalts and HHRs. No, I'm not the first to bring up the point, and no, it's not some sort of revelation that this is a problem, yet I'm continually flabbergasted that such a sore thumb continues to be overlooked as Cadillac strives to become a legitimate luxury nameplate again.

Peter DeLorenzo, whose ravings can be found at Autoextremist noted last year that there were strong rumours about a possible mid-engined Corvette variant in the wings from Chevrolet. While the traditionalists immediately threw their hands up in the air and bemoaned the 'idiocy' of such a move, I would welcome it as it would allow GM to reconfigure their branding paradigm.

Imagine this world for a moment:

• Pontaic/Buck/GMC operating under one roof, with Pontiac offering RWD performance cars, Buick offering FWD near luxury cars, and GMC offering SUVs and trucks
• Chevrolet becoming a one brand dealership selling all of the mass market offerings, with an emphasis on economy and midsize cars, and with nothing costing more than 30k US if it's not an SUV or truck
• Saturn continuing as the redheaded stepchild
• A fully fleshed out Hummer lineup with competitors across the lineup to Jeep, from compact trucks to fullsize behemoths, all focused on offroading
• And finally, a combination Cadillac/Corvette dealership

The last point is the most important. GM nees to 'spin off' Corvette into its own brand. This is a perfect opportunity for them- with the regular Corvette, convertible, Z06 and ZR1, there are already 4 distinct models in the lineup. Add in a mid-engined variant, and you'd have the makings of something special. The upside to this is that GM could sell expensive cars next to expensive cars as well, giving a halo effect to both the Corvette and the Cadillac lineup.

Of course, in the real world, this will not happen. And Corvette buyers will continue to jostle for dealer attention with Aveo buyers, and Cadillac buyers will be subjected to Cobalt mentalities when trying to buy XLRs.

Such is life.

Audi Q5 Pictures Leaked

I'd be all excited at this thrilling news, but really, who cares? Another boring design from Audi that looks like a big bar of soap, but with a large chromed mouth. Yeehaw. Apart from the R8, does this company have any idea what they're doing or who they are?

Audi, and VW for that matter, have to be the most overrated automobile manufacturers on the planet. Yes, they have a very nice VR6 engine, and yes the 2.0 turbo engine is nice and tractable (but probably not suitable for a luxury car...and that's an argument for another day), but everything else is bland, uninspired and suffers from a severe case of resting on laurels. The vaunted interiors? Yeah, the feel nice and the materials are top notch, but sitting in one feels claustrophobic and the actual DESIGN is lacking. The handling? Apart from the RS4, we're talking copious amounts of understeer due to a FWD biased AWD system.

The cars are bland, the designs are bland, and the outlook is horrendous- Audi and VW are two companies in search of an identity. And they better find it fast. And no, cute utes that look like every other vehicle on the market are not the answer.

And don't even get me started on the VW CC.

You Stay Classy Jaguar

The brand new Jaguar XF for '09 is quite the practical and functional sedan with much cabin room, a huge trunk complemented with 60/40 rear fold-down seats, a button on the console, once pressed, adapts the vehicle for winder driving modes, has a heated windshield and rear windscreen, and best of all, retains its prestigious Jaguar heritage. There are so few on the road, and thus, the model I showed you will only be produced in limited numbers, since it's the S-Type replacement. The true 'Jaguar' substitute for a Lexus LS430 would really be the XJ8, or the extended wheelbase Vanden Plas saloon.

Please accept my token of appreciation for your visit, and 'Jaguar' product considerations. Perhaps you'll at least win a cup of coffee or a lunch on me. I remain appreciative of your interest in fine English motor cars.

That, verbatim, is a handwritten note I received from the local Jag dealership after looking at the new XF. Included with the note, the 'token of appreciation' was 3 scratch and win tickets, one of which won me $12.

In regards to the tickets...

Unique and fun touch by a salesman looking to sell a car?
Budget mindset not suitable for a high end luxury dealership?

I'm leaning towards the former.

Oh, and the XF is stunning, at least on the inside.

Chrysler Hates Nice Door Cut Outs

Surely I'm not the only who has noticed this, but the next time you're on the road, pay close attention to the Chrysler vehicles around you. It's dawned on me that they have a curious design element that I see on basically no other competitor vehicles on the market- a rear door cut line that goes straight down into the rear fender.

What's the reason for such an odd touch? Is it cheaper? Is it easier to set up the manufacturing facility? I have no idea. What I do know is that it looks very cheap. Very very cheap. It looks as though the designers have put function, or ease of manufacturing, over style- and for all their faults, that's not something I've come to expect from Chrysler over the years. In contrast, most vehicles on the road have a rear door cut line that looks like this:


And I didn't put another Chrysler up there by accident. Coincidentally, the 300/Charger were designed and built during the Daimler era, and probably not so coincidentally, they're one of the few continued bright spots in the Chrysler lineup to this day.

Mercury Introduces Upscale Trim Level, Names It So It Sounds Vaguely Like A Russian Mail Order Bride

Or at the very least, a guide association based in Vermont.

I mean seriously, VOGA? That's what they came up with? Why is it that the most stupid ideas are the ones that consistently get chosen or are successful (relatively speaking) in life? Case in point- the other day I'm watching an informercial advertising some sort of weight loss belt that apparently vibrates in order to disintegrate fat cells. Yes, you read that right. And the scary thing is, I'm sure the thing has buyers for it.

What does this have to do with VOGA? I have no idea.

Source: Detroit News

24 Is The New 28

From the New York Times:

But S.U.V.’s and pickups are fast losing popularity in the face of $3-a-gallon gasoline, while the car market, dominated by foreign manufacturers, is growing.

Mr. Lutz sees hope in the fact that the company seems to have stabilized at just under 24 percent, versus the 28 percent that executives vowed to attain when he first arrived, even donning lapel pins with the number.

“Twenty-four is the new 28,” Mr. Lutz declared, given the company’s decision to pull back on rental car sales and huge incentives, as well as the intense industry competition.

How many minutes after Bob says something ludicrous do you think it takes for his brain to realize that his mouth said it?

My guess is 6. And a half.

Lipstick On Pigs

Exhibit A:


Exhibit B:


The 2008 Buick lineup is slowly hitting the streets. You might recognize it. You'll be driving along minding your own business when all of a sudden a giant maw will appear in your rear view mirror. You'll pause for a second and suspect that your rear view mirror may have a convex surface, thus accentuating the features of the former relatively svelte Buick facepiece. But you'd be wrong.

Yes folks. Buick has found the perfect way to reinforce the sales and buzz of the Enclave- giant black hole grilles.

What's sad is that GM CAN actually do a refresh nicely:

Ford Decides to Hold Onto Volvo

It's pretty well known that as part of Ford's continuing review of its brand portfolio (coupled with a relatively urgent need for cash to fund its turnaround efforts), it had considered selling Volvo.

Yesterday, as part of the release of Ford's better-than-expected third quarter financial results, CEO Alan Mulally announced that for the time being, Ford is not going to sell Volvo. Instead, Ford intends to improve Volvo's cost structure and brand positioning. The objective for Volvo in the near term is for it to operate more independently, yet achieve greater efficiency by cooperating with the global Ford organization in purchasing and product development.

Both Volvo and Ford are in difficult positions. Aside from its aforementioned struggles, Ford has depended on Volvo-developed platforms for several of its large cars and crossovers, and an extraction of Volvo from Ford might be difficult while there is so much component sharing. Volvo is struggling with its perception in the marketplace as safe family cars with a touch of luxury, but also of a brand that is a step or so behind the big-name luxury brands such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Audi. Also, the fall in value of the US dollar, coupled with the appreciation of the Swedish Kronor, has made Volvos (all of which are produced in Sweden currently) difficult to price competitively in the US. Volvo's options are to reduce the cost structure (possibly at the expense of any premium image), raise prices (possibly at the expense of sales volume), or hold the line on prices (possibly at the expense of profitability). Speaking of profitability, although Ford does not break out Volvo's results individually, but the company did say that Volvo posted an undisclosed loss in the third quarter of 2007. According to Automotive News, sources close to the company have said that it was in excess of $100 million.

Ford said that just because it decided not to sell Volvo in the short term, it doesn't mean that Volvo might not eventually be sold. Down the road, the focus on improving efficiencies in product development and purchasing might make Volvo's financials look better for a potential buyer, and encouraging Volvo to otherwise operate more independently might make it a more attractive purchase for another buyer.

2008 Chevy Cobalt 1LT Review

Last week, I was the unfortunate victim of a hit-and-run accident on my way home from work. The perpetrator crossed the double yellow lines in a relatively narrow residential street, skidded along the side of my Honda Accord, and caused $2,643 in damage, not to mention the temporary loss of my vehicle for several weeks, and the permanent loss of its status as never having paint work done on it.

The day after the accident, I drove the car to an excellent body shop about 75 miles from my home (unfortunately, they've had to ply their excellent handiwork on my wife's vehicle about four years ago). This time, however, my loaner car was a brand new 2008 Chevy Cobalt LT sedan instead of a four year old Cavalier, as my wife received in 2004. I'd sat in a few Cobalts over the years, but never actually driven one, so I was looking forward to checking it out. I wasn't looking forward to "trading down" for a few weeks, but such is life.

The Cobalt is not an ugly car. I find it more attractive than, say, a Toyota Corolla, but less attractive than a Honda Civic or Mazda3. Although the Cobalt took the Cavalier's spot in the Chevrolet lineup, it is a completely different vehicle, sharing almost no parts. Looking at it, though, you wouldn't know it. The Cobalt sedan has a very uninspiring style to my eyes. In contrast with the Cobalt coupe - especially in the now-discontinued SS Supercharged trim - the sedan is not the looker of the family. Visually, everything seemed to be properly aligned except for the trunklid - the first time I closed it, it actually bounced back up. The second attempt did latch it, but the gap on the right side is much larger than the gap on the left side. This misalignment may have made it difficult for the latch to do its job.

Opening the door felt like everything was appropriately attached. The seats in the LT model that I have are cloth covered and reasonably comfortable; the cloth felt a little cheap (although I'm used to leather), but the seats have adjustable lumbar support, reclining, and one other knob whose function I haven't identified yet. Once seated, the interior is reasonably appealing, until you begin to touch things. The gauges are surrounded by faux chrome trim, the inner door releases are plastic chrome, and the upper dash in my navy blue sedan is a charcoal gray, while the lower part of the dash is a lighter shade of gray - actually, this is the same color combination inside my Accord. However, the entire dashboard - top, middle, and bottom - is hard plastic with a very artificial-feeling, rough texture. It's also hollow knocking on it yields an echo. The radio, shared with many other GM vehicles, has a CD player with MP3 capability, an auxiliary jack for an iPod or MP3 player, and XM Satellite Radio. (Enterprise hadn't activated the car's XM, but the kind folks at XM were able to temporarily transfer my subscription to the Cobalt for the duration of my time with the car for free). The radio is relatively easy to figure out, and seems to be only a few speakers, a subwoofer, and sufficient wattage away from being a decent one. The rubberized, large volume/power knob was nice to use, although it has a thin plastic, hollow sound, unlike a similar knob in my (admittedly more expensive) Accord.

Interior space is actually very good, at least in the driver's seat, even though I'm 6'4" and 190 pounds. My head is about three inches from the ceiling, which is about the best I can hope for from anything smaller than a Dodge Sprinter, and my knees do not touch the lower dashboard. I find the Cobalt, at least this particular one, to be an interesting vehicle because of the contrasts/conflicts apparent within it. Some parts of the car scream "cheap!" to me, while other parts of the car impart a premium feel. I've already mentioned some of the "cheap" parts; others include the 100% plastic parking brake pull, door panels, a lack of cruise control (though it's available on the Cobalt as a $248 option), a windshield without the blue tinted area at the top, really flimsy sun visors (though they're no worse than our $35,000 Nissan Pathfinder's), no temperature gauge, and no anti-lock brakes (available as a $360 option). The more premium features include the standard XM radio, power windows, mirrors, and locks, remote keyless entry, a woven headliner, a DIC (digital instrument cluster), and automatic headlamps.

As I slid the four speed automatic into reverse to back out of my garage, the car was rolling, but was not engaged in a gear. I looked down to find that what I thought was the detent for reverse was really just extra friction between park and reverse. It's not a very smoothly-acting gearshift, even for an automatic. Once underway, the powertrain (my rental has the 148 horsepower 2.2 liter Ecotec four cylinder and four speed automatic) sounds and feels fine during leisurely driving, but if conditions call for a quick merge onto a crowded expressway, the transmission quickly drops a few gears, the Ecotec screams, and eventually you get to highway speed. Without the benefit of a fifth wheel, the seat of my pants (which is, admittedly, likely to be inaccurate) says that it feels like about 9.5 or 10 seconds from 0 to 60.

Braking feels fine; the car is equipped with front disc and rear drum brakes. Drum brakes are often found on less-expensive cars, but they can be more susceptible to fade with heavy use, but they were certainly adequate for how I'd use the car. The Cobalt was the first vehicle I'd ever driven with electric power steering; the criticisms I'd read of this system are warranted. It lacks feedback and feels unnatural, particularly at low speeds. Still, I do appreciate that its reason for existence is to conserve fuel. The Cobalt handled road imperfections nicely; I didn't push its handling (I'm still a little shell shocked after the hit-and-run, after all), but I don't particularly feel unsafe driving it.

The most surprising thing to me about the Cobalt is that, until GM's cost reductions in the past year or two, they actually lost money on every Cobalt they sold, in spite of the obvious decontenting. Yet, when I think about the 1990 Pontiac Grand Ams that I used to browse at the dealership with window stickers very close to the Cobalt's ($15,955 including destination for a 1LT like this one with no options except for the automatic transmission), with very similar equipment levels, but lacking any airbags, much less dual front and head curtain side airbags - and lacking amenities such as XM radio, automatic headlights, and a digital instrument cluster, the Cobalt seems to be a solid value.

Still, if I were shopping for a compact car, I'd be sure to drive the newer competition before signing on the dotted line for a Cobalt. I really think that GM has proven in the past two years that it can do much better, and I look forward to driving the next Cobalt.

Snap Judgement Tuesday

Now that it has been redone, the Ford Taurus is the best looking full sized car on the market.

Bonus content- want to waste some time? Click here and join.

Honda Accord Diesel and New Hybrid Coming for 2009 Model Year

At the Tokyo Auto Show, Honda confirmed that the 2009 US Accord will have an optional 2.2 liter diesel engine. Boost levels, and therefore output, have not yet been finalized, but it's expected to make at least 150 horsepower and 260 lb-ft. of torque, while likely eclipsing the fuel economy of both the old V6 Accord Hybrid and the current Toyota Camry Hybrid.

This will be an impressive engine for several reasons. Other than the respectable power and torque for a four cylinder and expected strong fuel efficiency (likely well over 40 miles per gallon in the real world), the engine will mark the debut of Honda's Clean Diesel technology in the US. The engine will be 50 state-legal (unlike many 2007 model year diesels), and unique to Honda, the engine will not require a urea injection as Mercedes and larger VW diesels to remove harmful NOx from the exhaust (Mercedes calls their diesels BlueTec, and the urea injection liquid, which must be periodically refilled at the dealer, is called AdBlue). Instead, Honda's solution is a NOx converter that - without adding any chemicals - produces its own ammonia through a chemical reaction that reacts with the NOx to produce harmless nitrogen and water.

Honda is also planning to begin sales of its new dedicated hybrid model, likely to compete directly with the popular Toyota Prius. The new Honda hybrid (which still does not have a name) will be a five passenger vehicle. This vehicle may be followed later by a smaller, sportier hybrid model similar to the Honda CR-Z concept (shown to the left) previously shown by Honda.

The best news about these new engines and vehicles is that Honda has directly addressed one of the biggest criticisms of hybrid and diesel vehicles: that is, diesels and hybrids typically save fuel, but the added complexity and components makes the vehicles too expensive to have any kind of economic benefit. Instead, Honda expects that the breakeven point (where fuel savings have equaled the additional price premium for a diesel or hybrid) will be two years for these new models. An earlier rumor on the Accord Diesel's pricing was that it would slot somewhere in the middle of the lineup, so it certainly seems plausible. If Honda keeps the pricing in that sweet spot, 2009 Accord Diesel sales should take off.

Autoblog Wants To Marry General Motors

John Neff at Autoblog reported on comments made by Honda chief executive Takeo Fukui about the concept Chevy Volt in a post today. Seems that Honda doesn't think there is much of a future in technology like the Volt, and is letting it be known. A few months ago, Toyota more or less said the same thing. Whether they're right or not isn't the point of MY post however. This is:

What bothers us about Toyota and Honda going after General Motors and its plans for the Chevy Volt is simply the fact that they're bothering to address the Volt at all. Stop worrying about what the other guy's doing and get to work on your own plan for saving the Earth from the evil of the internal combustion engine. We get it, you both aren't down with doing a plug-in series hybrid like the Volt. Then what are you going to do and where is it? Rather than claiming consumers aren't going to respond well to a hybrid that has to be plugged in everyday (yeah, who wants to get their fuel from the outlet in their garage rather than driving down the street for it?), quit yer yappin' and show us a better solution!

Umm, John? See those 15,000 or so copies of the Prius being sold every month? Or the Highlander hybrid? Or the Camry hybrid? Or the GS400h? Or the LS600h? Or the RX350h? What about the Civic and Accord hybrids? What about the Honda hydrogen concept cars that are actually being driven on roads? The stupidity of asking what Honda and Toyota are going to do regarding fuel consumption looms large over this article, considering the fact that both companies are world leaders in fuel economy and technology related to increasing it. Meanwhile, GM is only now rolling out the Two Mode hybrid system, and for years has bastardized the hybrid badge by using BAS crap. One good idea that has not come close to fruition does not make GM a leader in any sense of the word.

Pseudo-Pipes

For the first time this fall, the weather was cool enough today that the exhaust fumes of most cars on the road were visible. Waiting in traffic, I noticed something very odd with the Mazda 6 in front of me- only one of the exhaust tips was blowing out water vapour. What's up with that? Curious, I then started keeping an eye out for it- a Mazdaspeed 6 did not have this happening... a Saturn Aura did not have this happening... a Ford Fusion V6 did have this happening. I even made it a point to check out the twin pipes on the Altima I drive, a 4 banger, and saw that both pipes had visible vapour.

So what's up with that? Are some vehicles with dual pipes actually just doing it more for show than anything else? If there's no visible vapour, does that mean that the one pipe doesn't have exhaust fumes going through it?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Tundragate

Picture and the following quote courtesy of Tundra Solutions-

Some of you on here may see me as a Toyota Zealist but even with my loyalty towards Toyota I'll throw a BS flag at them as fast as anyone else, so here it is. Well its pretty obvious that the tailgates on these new tundras have some issues. There have been multiple threads of folks loading 4 wheelers, golf carts and damaging their tailgates in the process. I was following a thread on a tailgate failure on TT and it was about a guy who tried to load his atv in the back of his Tundra and the tailgate bent and buckled in the process. So I went out to look at mine since I have loaded mine quite a few times without a problem and noticed that my tailgate is gonna do the same thing his did. The shell is 2 thin azz pieces with a chinsy seam that appears to be bonded with something I cant even say that its welded cuz it doesn't look like a weld. Anyway heres a few pics and the link to this guys post where his failed to support the weight of his wheeler the first time he attempted to load it This is gonna be a mess up here in AK, cuz thats how most people transport their wheelers. This same wheeler has been loaded in the bed of 2 of my Tacomas and a T-100 with no problem over the last 10 years and now Toyotas biggest truck ever has a tailgate that wont support what a 1996 Tacoma, 1999 Tacoma , and a 97 T-100 could. This is gonna be a fun one, thankfully I dont have to load the quad again until May so I have some time to figure this out. I dont know if the spring loaded easy drop feature for suburban moms is the reason for this lightweight chinsy tailgate but its not gonna fly for those of us who actually use their truck as a truck.

Heres the pics of another tundra owners tailgate that is what mine will eventually look like. This was the first time he ever loaded his quad.

It gets better from there as a whole bunch of other Tundra owners proceed to run out of their dens to go and check on their trucks, and discover that the very same thing is happening to them.

Quite obviously, Toyota did not design the tailgate properly on the Tundra. Not only that- they hyped how light and easy to close it was when they launched the Tundra- seems like it's that way because it's made of tinfoil. On the heels of the camshaft failures and the transmission problems they've experienced, I am only left to ponder one question- what's for lunch tomorrow?

Snap Judgement Monday

The 2008 Chevrolet Malibu is the blandest and most boring new vehicle I have ever set my eyes on.

The Surreal Life

Flicking through the channels tonight, and happen upon a show on Speed called 'Car Crazy'.

The host? None other than Barry Meguiar, whose name I'm sure you've seen on various car polish products. This is Barry Meguiar:


Old Barry here is the quintessential old guy. A little befuddled, and generally upbeat about cars. Not a bad host. Think kindly old grandfather and you wouldn't be too far from the truth. Car Crazy had Barry at the Dub Car Show during the particular episode I was watching.

This is Dub Magazine:

Dub Magazine likes 24 inch slammed Escalades, big sound systems, and ass. Lots of ass if the above cover is any indication. So it would only stand to reason that Car Crazy would send Barry Meguiar out to the event so he could reminisce fondly with all attending about the Model T he used to drive as a teenager.

But it gets better.

This is who Barry Meguiar gets to interview:


Atlanta's own Lil' Scrappy. Or as he put it, 'Money In The Bank'. Lil' Scrappy used his airtime to tell us about his upcoming album and to shout out half of his boys back home watching on TV. During all this, Barry nodded enthusiastically, almost lost his dentures several times, and kept emitting a low grunt like chuckle at infrequent intervals

Basically, I'm pretty sure I'd watch anything with Barry Meguiar in it at this point. I hope they send him to SEMA next.

The Race To Idiotic Conclusions

Source: Sympatico/MSN Autos

Extrapolating that tuning success to fuel economy seems like a logical progression. But don't go all-in with this bet. Looking back 15 years reveals that the fuel mileage evolution has stagnated, even regressed to Neanderthal standards in some cases.

Congratulations to the author of this article on some of the most trite bullshit I've read in quite a while.

To sum up:

• Base level economy cars with no frills and a complete absence of safety features from 1992 had great fuel economy.
• Base level economy cars of today that have frills and safety features not even found in luxury cars back in 1992 have great fuel economy, but not as good as back in 1992.
• A Lamborghini or a Bentley uses a lot of gas... a Yaris, Civic and Mini Cooper do not... OMG LOL !!!!111ONE!!!!
  

What has caused me to make a post about this? Essentially the title and the gist of the article. Yes, they mention that government regulations on safety equipment have been the primary reason for weight gain in cars for the last 15 years, but they bury it in one of the last paragraphs of the article after lambasting vehicles like the Civic for getting too heavy- it's sensationalism and bullshit smear tactics at their worst.

Note to the author- you can't have your cake and eat it too- want all the safety features and solidity of a modern day Civic? Then it's going to weigh more. If that's not your thing, enjoy your 3 cylinder death on wheels Geo Metro, and stop your nonsensical drivel.