"Global warming," "alternative fuel," "greenhouse gas," and "hybrid car" are phrases now associated with the automotive industry. With consumers, the important vehicle attributes are increasingly shifting from engine size, power and acceleration to mileage, emissions and environmental footprint.

As many popular automotive brands celebrate their one-hundredth anniversary the automotive industry is at a crossroads. Initially, the automobile's existence relied on the development of engines that were small enough to be mobile, a technological breakthrough which occurred just over 100 years ago. Prior to that time, power was derived from large, external combustion steam engines. Steam was created from the heat of external combustion or "burning" of wood and, later, coal.

The gasoline internal combustion engine, now the bane of modern environmentalists, was a viable alternative power source to steam. Exhaust emitted from a gasoline engine literally paled in comparison to the thick black smoke spewed from burning coal. Additionally, it was a welcome replacement to the messy discharge of the more common personal conveyance—the horse.

As noisy and unreliable as the early gasoline engine may have been, it enjoyed incredible popularity because the energy came from petroleum. Nothing could compare with the amount of power, speed and distance that was packed in petroleum. No one could have foreseen the incredible growth of the automobile industry and the importance that personal mobility has played in our economic development during the past century. That growth has "fueled" a nearly insatiable dependence on petroleum as an energy source.

The difficulties in burning petroleum as a fuel have become evident over time. Liquid petroleum, or oil, is a finite resource that will eventually run out. In addition, the reliance on petroleum can lead to economic and political instability depending on where it is sourced. Extracting, refining, transporting and storing petroleum can wreak havoc on the environment. Furthermore, the combustion of petroleum adversely affects air quality and increases the presence of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, which are believed to be a major cause of global warming. To top it all off--petroleum is getting more and more expensive.

So what are the alternatives? We're glad you asked because that is exactly what we’ll be discussing in future Green Scene blogs.

17:43 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Rental car agents hate guys like me. Most people just initial here, sign there, grab the keys, and drive off in whatever nondescript hunk of sheet metal has been assigned to them. Not me. When I arrive at the rental lot, I'm already scanning slots from the shuttle, looking for my best alternative. At the desk, I ask about my options, I check availability in the next class down or up from the "midsize" car I reserved, and sometimes I even demand a specific car that's sitting on the lot whether it's been cleaned and gassed or not. In short, I am a total pain in the butt.

It pays off, though. One time after arriving late at night at the Syracuse, NY, airport, I ditched a brand new Kia Sorento LX 4WD for a well-used Pontiac G6 GTP after the agent told me to come back in the morning to see if the agency had anything more fuel-efficient. That probably saved me hundreds of dollars over thousands of miles of driving during a summer road trip. Another time, I snagged a brand new Dodge Charger SXT before I had seen any on the road, and for the same price as the "compact" I had reserved, just because the night guy at Boston Logan's Thrifty lot was bored and enjoyed talking to me about cars.

On my last trip, I snagged a lower rate on a "compact"Ford Focus SES after declining to drive any of the three "midsize" offerings listed by the agent: Hyundai Elantra, Saturn Ion or Toyota Corolla. When these three cars became "midsize" sedans is anyone's guess, and since I didn't want to upgrade to a Chrysler 300 Touring for just $12 extra per day, I asked if I could get the Ford Focus in the Fastbreak lane at the Budget lot near O'Hare Airport in Chicago.

Me: "Can I get one of the Ford Focuses in the Fastbreak area even though I'm not a Fastbreak member?"

Agent: "Sir, that's a compact. You reserved a midsize."

Me: "I know. I'm familiar with the car. The Focus will work for me."

Agent (calling lot attendant): "I have a customer who wants a Focus. Can you bring one over from the Fastbreak lot?"

Me: "I want the gold one in slot A2."

Agent (patiently to lot attendant): "Customer wants the gold one."

It's not that I like the color gold. Rather, of the two Focuses available, the gold one was the SES trim level while the maroon one was the SE trim level. That meant more than just 16-inch alloys with Pirelli P6 tires, fog lights and a snazzy decklid spoiler. The Focus SES also comes with a tilt and telescopic steering wheel wrapped in leather, cruise control, and a sport-tuned suspension. I figure, if I'm driving this rental car for a week, I might as well get one I'll enjoy.

Eight days later, I returned the Focus to Budget with an additional 1,400 miles on the odometer. The car returned an average of 29.5 mpg during my travels, and as one of the Top 30 cars on the 2007 J.D. Power and Associates Automotive Environmental Index, it polluted the Midwestern atmosphere less than other choices. The Euro-engineered Focus drove as expected: it was taut and responsive, with good brake pedal feel and entertaining handling. It wasn't fast but it wasn't slow, it wasn't terribly refined but neither was it a crude device. Comfort isn't a Focus strong point in my opinion, but people smaller than me think it's just fine. I also noticed that it didn't come with side curtain air bags, but Ford is rectifying this with the car's 2008 redesign.

What pleasantly surprised me about the car was how functional it was for a family road trip. When I made my reservation, a "midsize" car at Budget was advertised as a "Chrysler Sebring or similar." The choices I was given—Elantra, Ion, or Corolla—are not similar to a Chrysler Sebring. So I was concerned that the Ford Focus would be too small to fit everyone'ss stuff. I was wrong.

We crammed more than I ever expected into that car, and nobody complained about comfort except me (and only because I needed another inch or two of either leg room or seat height adjustment—the seat itself is just fine). Into the Focus's trunk went two medium-size suitcases, two medium-size duffel bags, two backpacks, and a garment bag. Into the rear seat went two pillows, two favorite stuffed animals, and two more backpacks filled with art supplies, books, GameBoys, and one iPod. The lower left dash slot is intended for CDs but served as camcorder storage, and the front door bins held sunglasses cases and water bottles. The center console cupholders contained a Treo, a cell phone and a pack of gum. The large glovebox went unused, as did the storage located under the center armrest.

Our success with the Focus got me thinking about how family cars continue to get bigger, heavier, and thirstier. With each redesign, vehicles like the Ford Taurus, Honda Accord and Toyota Highlander expand in size and in weight, and only through technical innovation manage to match or slightly improve on fuel economy. The frugal and functional Focus proved to me that this expansion in size isn't really necessary. Bigger is not necessarily better. I will remember that the next time I reserve a so-called "midsize"car, step up to the rental counter and to the agent's chagrin, begin exploring my options.

12:59 | Permalink | Comments (1)

We called it "The Tank." The radio was AM only. The seats were black pleather (that is, plastic leather), which meant during the peak summer heat, there should have been a little yellow warning sign stating: "Passengers are likely to scorch their legs and stick to the seat." It was a navy-colored 1974 Chevy Impala station wagon (actually, it was originally rust, but we had it repainted when there was more actual rust than the color rust). It was one of two wagons our family owned back when everybody owned station wagons. Heck, even the Brady Bunch had a station wagon.

Frankly, The Tank had only three redeeming qualities: first, it truly was a tank, and could therefore withstand even the most severe teenage driving miscues (new headlight after a major collision with a 1987 Thunderbird—$150); secondly, I could pile 10 of my closest friends (I mean seven, mom, I swear we never had more than seven) in the car; and thirdly, the engine was, well, AWESOME! That's about where the positives end. But we loved our wagon.

Then came the '80s, and wagons (like the Brady Bunch) became uncool. By then, wagons had simply devolved from cool ride (remember wagons of the 1950's and 1960's?) into simple transportation. And, slowly but surely, those families who had station wagons replaced them with minivans.

Now, I need to admit that I was never a big fan of the minivan. I mean, at least with wagons, there was a point in time when they were cool. Minivans were never cool, just utilitarian (by the way, the category of minivans does not include the VW Microbus or any van with a waterbed inside or a mural painted on the outside—those are also not cool, but for different reasons). In fact, I have a friend who I truly believe shills for an ultra-secret society dedicated to lowering testosterone by making dads drive minivans. Sorry, I just don't get the minivan appeal—even as a father with two kids.

I actually smiled last week when I saw that minivan sales were down by nearly half of what they were in 1997. And do you know what customers are trading them for? Crossovers, MAVs, SAVs, CUVs—each manufacturer calls them something different, but no matter the name, they're wagons, just a little taller.

I like to believe there was an automotive think-tank somewhere with a bunch of people sitting around a table, and the conversation went something like this:

"We need to develop some new cars."
"Why don't we bring back the station wagon?"
"Nobody wants a station wagon."
"But what if we make them a little cooler, put some decent engines in them and call them something else?"
"Well, they'd kind of be like SUVs."
"But on the chassis of a car."
"Hey, did you just see Allen Iverson break down the Boston defense with that amazing crossover dribble? That guy's insane."
"That's it—we'll call them Crossovers."

It's an amazing story of remarketing, like prunes. Do you know anyone under the age of 70 who eats prunes? No. But sundried plums—ah, now that's got a nice ring to it. I'd buy a pack of those (American Prune Council, you can thank me later). It's similar to the leap of the Brady Bunch from 1970's TV to 1990's big screen.

So, call them crossovers, call them MAVs, call them wagons. Just don't try to sell me your manhood-stealing-minivan. Long live the wagon! Take that, minivan shill!

12:47 | Permalink | Comments (1)

I understand the concept of competitive advertising, I just don't like it. Lately, aggressive positioning versus the competition is used in television commercials with increasing frequency, especially during prime time. A short time ago, Hyundai ran a commercial comparing one of its models to a BMW 5 Series. Does it really matter to potential Hyundai buyers how this model compares with a luxury car, some versions of which start at $58,000?

Similarly, Ford is running a series of commercials comparing the Edge—a midsize MAV, which recently ranked as the most appealing in its segment, according to the J.D. Power and Associates APEAL Study—to a Lexus RX 350 and a BMW X5. Again, is it relevant to prospective buyers that the Edge is marginally faster than a BMW or slightly quieter than a Lexus, which start at $45,900 and $37,400 respectively, when the Ford Edge starts at $25,320 and is not even in the midsize premium CUV segment?

The use of competitive references is particularly apparent in large pickup truck advertising. In a regional dealer association ad, Toyota features a buyer explaining how his previous truck, a Ford F-150, struggled to tow a boat and trailer. In an ad for the Titan, Nissan compares the utility of its truck's bed to the F-150. And Ford is running a commercial comparing the size of chassis bolts among competitors. Does one person's opinion about a Ford truck matter to some buyers? Will some truck shoppers buy a Titan because it has better cargo tie-down straps? Is someone going to buy an F-150 because it has bigger bolts? Not likely.

With 36 distinct brands selling more than 300 models to some 17 million buyers each year, the automotive market is ultra competitive. And with negative net pricing—which means that the prices of cars are coming down each year—the gloves have come off. Automakers and their advertisers have lost all sense of respect for their brands. My grandmother used to tell me: "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all," and I would offer her advice to today's advertisers. In my opinion, this type of advertising can have a negative effect on brand perception. Potential buyers may be offended by the idea that an automaker is coloring their perception about a particular competitive brand or model.

For example, a certain automaker is running a print ad comparing their mass-produced products—a crossover or CUV and a sports car—to the Porsche Cayenne and Boxster. The headline of the ad says, "Porsche makes great cars. These are just a little faster." The copy explains that the automaker's SUV delivers a "0-60 in under 7 (seconds)," and that it's "over a half-second faster than Porsche claims the Cayenne is." The automaker also claims that its two-seat sports car leaves "the Porsche Boxster almost a half-second behind." While these performance figures may be accurate, there are many things that this automaker's products do not have. The most important thing that it is missing is the brand reputation of its competitor.

08:05 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Recently, J.D. Power and Associates released results of the 2007 Initial Quality Study (IQS), an annual report of new vehicle quality. The report cites the industry average as 125 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100) sold in the United States, or 1.25 problems for every new vehicle, on average. Problems can vary from defunct engine sensors to mousetrap-like cup holder designs. The bottom line is: a problem is a problem.

Compared to other industries, an average of 125 problems for every 100 new vehicles is pretty good. The auto industry is held to much tougher standards and regulations than most consumer goods. During the past decade the industry has halved the number of problems that the average new-vehicle owner experiences, and in the process auto manufacturers have also integrated a wide array of features and technologies to make new vehicles safer, faster and smarter than ever.

Quality ratings have improved so much in the past two decades that it begs the question: does the Initial Quality Study still matter?

Absolutely yes.

IQS provides new-vehicle owners a voice that really matters—a powerful voice that tells the auto industry what is going right and what is problematic. Automakers use this information for bragging rights if they do well, or the auto brands endure public notice for producing below-average lineups. Either way, this information helps auto manufacturers diagnose key quality issues related to manufacturing processes and conceptual designs. More importantly, IQS tells the auto industry what customers are experiencing and continually sets a higher quality standard.

The core concept that IQS proposes is to simply notify the auto industry of how it is performing, and to let the public know as well. New-vehicle quality has improved dramatically over the past decade, and it is easy to forget a time when 100,000 miles meant your car was ready to be recycled. However, IQS is as important as ever—to both consumers and the auto manufacturers.

The IQS payoff for consumers is better cars, plain and simple.

Improved vehicle quality means you don't have to worry about your car falling to pieces right after you buy it—a reasonable concern in the 80s. New vehicles today are well made, and many newly-launched vehicles have great quality in the first model year. For example, the completely redesigned Mercedes-Benz S-Class was able to launch this year and tie for the most problem-free model in the industry, while also improving quality by 47% over its predecessor.

Automakers also earn a great payoff from IQS through lower warranty costs, loyal customers, and good word-of-mouth advertising. Each nameplate has found great value in striving for quality improvement, and maintaining or improving quality throughout the lifecycle of its vehicles.

Another great example: Hyundai is the poster child for quality improvement and what that can do for a brand's image. From 1998 to 2007, Hyundai has moved from 35th to 12th in the IQS rankings. Along the way, the brand has redefined itself from obscure import to global contender in the automotive space. Not to mention, Hyundai’s sales and market share have more than tripled during the past decade.

If you are shopping for a new car, truck or SUV, IQS can be a valuable resource when making the purchase decision. The unique Power Circle Ratings on JDPower.com can help take the guesswork out of interpreting PP100 scores, and there are also many other Power Circle Ratings that measure environmental friendliness, emotional appeal, comfort and vehicle dependability. These ratings can all be found in the car comparison tool at jdpower.com/autos.

If you are shopping for a new car, truck or SUV, IQS can be a valuable resource when making the purchase decision. The unique Power Circle Ratings on JDPower.com can help take the guesswork out of interpreting PP100 scores, and there are also many other Power Circle Ratings that measure environmental friendliness, emotional appeal, comfort and vehicle dependability. These ratings can all be found in the car comparison tool at jdpower.com/autos.

07:55 | Permalink | Comments (0)

I awoke at 5:00 a.m. that morning to test the top speed of a sparkling red Porsche Carrera GT that I rented from AutoEurope, a rental car agency in Germany. For the reasonable fee of $1,500 USD per day, I could cruise around Germany, strafe the autobahns, and test the car's handling through the mountain passes in and around this beautiful region.

Traffic was unusually light as I entered the autobahn at about 80 mph. Most of the cars were traveling slightly faster, around 85 to 95 mph. There were some delivery trucks on the road as well, but they were holding steady at around 75 mph and didn't seem to pose much of a hazard. Conditions were right for an unofficial top speed test.

As I approached a long, clear stretch of road, I pressed the accelerator into the floor. The furious roar from the engine, which, was positioned just behind me in this mid-engine machine, scared me at first because it sounded like a military jet taking off right in my ear. I wasn't prepared for the fury released by this engine at full throttle.

The numbers on the digital speedometer began to climb with breathtaking speed. By the time I stopped focusing on the throbbing and buzzing behind my head and was able to refocus on the road, the car was going 110 mph. Soon the digital speedometer showed 135 mph, then 155, 170, and 180 mph. Driving at that speed is certainly a unique and even otherworldly experience. Because of your intense concentration on the road and the speed at which objects are flying past you, time seems to slow down and things become eerily silent.

I was generating some serious numbers: numbers that should have concerned me at the time but didn't. At around 187 mph, the car's acceleration began to diminish, likely related to the substantial aerodynamic forces acting on a vehicle at this speed. Slowly but steadily, the speedometer continued to increase: 197, 201, and 203 mph.

Just as the car approached its top speed of 205 mph, and just as I was about to successfully complete my top-speed experiment, it happened. In my peripheral vision, I noticed a black speck in the rear-view mirror approaching at an unbelievably high rate of speed. In no time at all the vision became clear.

Traveling at more than 200 mph, I was about to be passed by the King of All Supercars: the extremely rare $1,000,000, 1,000 horsepower Bugatti Veyron. As is customary on the autobahn, slower cars move over to allow faster cars to pass, and this was no exception. That's exactly what I did. I was stunned. How could this happen? Who passes someone at 205 mph? Just when I was about to have the satisfaction of being able to tell people that I drove a Porsche Carrera GT at top speed on the autobahn, I was denied the privilege.

The truth is that it never happened. I never rented a Porsche in Germany and I've never been on the autobahn. All of this was a product of my overactive imagination and my passion for automobiles. But it did make me think about which supercar I would buy if I had half a million dollars to spend. While my imaginary rented Carrera GT might be a candidate for my dream garage, its status as a discontinued model means it's off my consideration list. Also disqualified from the list is the car that formerly held the title of the World's Fastest Car before the Bugatti was built. The McLaren F1, a joint effort between BMW and race-car builder McLaren, had a top speed of 240 mph. Since it is no longer produced, it doesn't make the cut.

There's the Ferrari Enzo, which may be referred to as the Ferrari Ferrari Enzo, if you prefer, because the word Ferrari is technically part of the model name. With 650 hp, the car is by no means slow. However, because of demand from loyal buyers, Ferrari is about to release the Ferrari FXX, an ultra-superfast version of the Enzo built from the same chassis with upgraded horsepower and handling. It produces a staggering 800 hp. However, since each of these models costs more than $1,000,000, both are beyond my imaginary budget.

The Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, however, is a different animal and one that I find highly appealing. At $350,000, if you can find one at that price, it fits within my budget. What I like most about this super-supercar is its power. An engine with 612 hp launches the car from 0-62 mph in 3.7 seconds. But the coolest feature is the F1-like, multi-position adjustment knob on the steering wheel called a manettino. Variables like ride stiffness and the threshold at which the stability system intervenes can be adjusted quickly and easily with this handy switch. Drivers can choose from five settings of shock absorber stiffness, traction and stability control, and steering ratio. In essence, the vehicle's behavior can be changed at the touch of a button.

For an imaginary $500,000, the Ferrari 599 meets all my requirements. It's fast, handles superbly, and has looks to die for. The Porsche Carrera GT is fun and interesting, but being passed at 200 mph can be slightly embarrassing. With a faster 0-60 time and a higher top speed, the Ferrari is the one I would choose to ward off fast-approaching Bugattis. In a drag race, I'd still lose, but I think I'd look better being passed in a Ferrari 599 than a Porsche Carrera. The 599 is far more attractive and the only supercar I'd want in my imaginary garage.

14:57 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Dear General Motors:

This weekend, I happened to catch a few minutes of one of my favorite cult classic movies, Billy Madison. I watched the scene where Billy, played by Adam Sandler, returns to high school. He shows up in his three-quarter sleeve raglan t-shirt (that's the shirt where the sleeves are a different color than the body; if you grew up in the '80s, you probably had one with Iron Maiden or Def Leppard on it). Sandler appears in a Trans Am that looks like it's been stored in a garage since 1979 and pulled out just for this occasion.

Well, that got me thinking. Having grown up in the late '70s/early '80s, you couldn't watch a decent action TV show that didn't have a cool car associated with it. Consider these shows:

The A-Team (GMC van)
Starsky and Hutch (Ford Gran Torino)
Magnum P.I. (Ferrari)
The Dukes of Hazzard (Dodge Charger)

With the Retro Revolution in full swing in many industries (fashion, movies, music, etc.) the automotive industry is on the bandwagon with returns and reintroductions of some of the most famous and infamous cars!

What was the car model that was featured in a classic film with multiple sequels, a car that co-starred in one of the most popular TV shows of the '80s, driven by one of the '80s most watched TV hunks? That's right, it's the Trans Am. In fact, here's one Web site that lists nearly 50 movies in which the Trans Am made at least a feature appearance.

Whether you prefer the '70s version or the '80s version (I don't think anyone preferred the '90s Firebird), this flashy model was a classic car during two eras with a classic brand to match. Whether it's Burt Reynolds trying to outrun Smokey Jackie Gleason with the help of Jerry Reed or KITT coming to the resuce of David Hasselhoff, the irrefutable fact is, those cars were cool!

In the past nine years since the automotive industry officially launched the Retro Reinvasion (in my mind, the introduction of the New Beetle is the Paul Revere-esqe official launch of the Retro car era), you can make the argument that there are a lot of brands that could be relaunched (Chevelle) or brands that deserve another relaunch (Cougar). However, when considering classic '60s, '70s and '80s cars, the question is: Where's the Trans Am?

Is there a cooler car waiting in the wings that hasn't been brought back? Ford did a great job with the Mustang. Dodge is bringing back the Challenger in 2008. And Chevy has the Camaro returning in 2008 or 2009 (and it looks sweet).

Some Trans Am enthusiasts are even coming up with their own concepts.

So, my request to GM: Please consider bringing back the Trans Am. And, my question for Ford: When will you bring back sequential tail lights?

Regards,

Mike Cooperman

12:00 | Permalink | Comments (10)

Congratulations on the purchase of your new car. Now that you've had some time with your new vehicle, are you satisfied with your purchase decision? Is it the vehicle you wanted? Does the vehicle fulfill all of your current automotive desires? If you answered "no" to any of these questions, you may want to consider aftermarket parts for your car. Consider my recent car-buying experience.

Earlier this year, I decided to take advantage of the big Memorial Day weekend sales events to purchase a new car. To put it frankly, my '95 Nissan Sentra with a blown head gasket just wasn't meeting my needs. Luckily, my home is within walking distance to an auto mall representing every major automotive company selling vehicles in the U.S. I only had two requirements for my new car: first, it had to be manual-shift; second, it had to be a coupe. If it came with extras like navigation, great, but I could live without them.

My journey took me first to the local Dodge dealership, where I looked at the Avenger. Nice car. Good price. It was a 4-door, but coupe-like, with one problem: it only comes with an automatic. Further down the street was a Toyota dealership. There, I looked at the Scion tC. It had everything I was looking for and was offered at a reasonable price, but there was one issue. Let's just say I didn't have the best experience at the dealership. Chevrolet was the next contestant. The Cobalt SS was ideal for my desires and needs. Just one setback: it was not available. With a skip and a jump down the yellow brick road I landed on the Honda lot. After about five total hours of car shopping, I finally drove off in a 2007 Honda Civic LX coupe. It met my requirements, gets over 30 miles per gallon on the highway, and it was reasonably priced.

Am I happy with my purchase? Yes. Is it the vehicle I wanted? Yes. In its current state, does the vehicle offer all the things I want? No, and with that it is time for me to enter the world of the automotive aftermarket. As part of this journey, I have mapped out a five-year plan of upgrades for my car. I'll start with aesthetics like tint, wheels, headlights, taillights, and maybe a lip kit. I'll definitely upgrade the suspension, intake, exhaust, and brakes. There is a possibility of going turbo, but I am not sure yet.

As I make my way through the world of the automotive aftermarket and upgrade my car, I will update this blog. If anyone else out there is doing the same thing, I would like to know what works for you.

08:23 | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm not an expert on global warming, but for the purposes of argument let's say the whole concept of the industrial revolution somehow altering the composition of the planet's atmosphere is one giant hoax. Forget melting ice pack, receding glaciers, warming oceans, and bizarre animal behavior. Ignore Al Gore's famous chart showing just how off the charts the situation has become, proving that what we've begun experiencing as a world society is not simply part of a normal heating and cooling pattern established hundreds of thousands of years ago. Let's just toss up our hands, shrug our shoulders, and chalk it up to stuff happens. After all, my cousin is a geological engineer, a guy with more expertise on the subject than I, and he's not convinced that humans could possibly have significant impact on a force as great as nature.

OK, now that we're feeling like the situation is completely out of our control, let me ask you a question: What if it is real? What if we, or more likely our children, confirm decades from now that during the first half of the 21st century we could have done our little part to stem the receding glaciers, to slow the rapid polar melting, to clean up the quality of our cities' air—just in case it is real?

If you look at the mix of low-emission, high fuel-economy vehicles in the recent J.D. Power and Associates Automotive Environmental Index (AEI), the only valid reason to buy something environmentally unfriendly is if you need to tow more than 3,500 pounds or regularly expect to carry more than seven adults in comfort. If that's your situation, you are excused. Class is dismissed. Go outside and play.

If that's not your situation, perhaps a trip to China is in order. See, in China, the economy is booming harder than Kanye (West) at a block party. In China, residents of some industrial cities see a dull orange orb through a murky brown haze instead of a blinding sun and a bright blue sky. In China, the air quality is awful in part because Americans buy so many material goods produced there. In China, you might need to wear one of those funky surgical masks like Michael Jackson does just to help you breathe normally. In China, people without those funky surgical masks are getting sick and dying because regulations governing emissions are lax. And it's not the Chinese that are burning through the world's energy resources at a perverse per-capita rate—it's Americans.

Hey, don't pack your bags. I'm not trying to send you on a guilt trip. Neither of the cars in my garage makes the J.D. Power and Associates AEI for 2007, either. And honestly, I'm not even sure my next car would (though my wife may swap her Nissan Murano for something more fuel efficient when her lease is up). For me, a car is more than a transportation device. I'm passionate about them, I love driving them, and few things in life are better than dropping the top on my Miata and going as fast as I can through the Santa Monica Mountains while getting more than 20 mpg.

Most people aren't like me, though. Most people just want something safe, reliable, and affordable to use for commuting and running errands. That's why the 2007 AEI is so important. The Top 30 environmentally friendly cars are just those kinds of vehicles. There are plenty to choose from, and just in case the concept of global warming is the real deal, what harm could possibly come from choosing one of these AEI vehicles over something that's, uh, not on the list?

10:20 | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know that statistics show flying is safer than driving, but like Dustin Hoffman's character Raymond Babbitt in the movie Rain Man, I hate flying. It scares me to death.I'd much rather drive. I also figured that a cross-country road trip would be a good way to find out if my certified used BMW was truly an Ultimate Driving Machine.

With the exception of a few minor scratches and exterior dings, my 2001 BMW 330i was as good as new. While the car had only 13,553 miles on the odometer before the trip, it would register 20,053 miles upon my return. My round-trip from Southern California to Massachusetts and back would add more than 6,000 miles to my odometer. The day before I was set to leave, an odd thing occurred. The driver's seat, which I had moved rearward to vacuum the interior, refused to return to its original position. Visions of sitting in a dealership service waiting area filled my head. After some fiddling with the switch, it began to work. Was this a sign of things to come?

When I arrived in Massachusetts four days later, I was exhausted. During that time, I had endured four dirty/scary/disgusting motel rooms; more fast food than is recommended for an entire lifetime; about 15 cups of a liquid that was supposed to be coffee; numerous gas station snacks; and seven cans of sweetened and highly caffeinated energy drinks. I couldn't sleep for two days. The good news is that I received no unwanted attention from law enforcement. Not one ticket or warning during the entire trip.

The trip home, however, was a different story. My problems started in Ohio, and if I ever drive across the United States again, I'll be sure to avoid it. I was in the left lane on a two-way divided highway when I saw a metal object pass under the car in front and then under my car. At 80 mph, there was barely time to react. I didn't think much of it, but a few minutes later I heard the troubling sound of a tire going flat. I called roadside assistance, which sent a truck to tow my car to a local dealership. After an unexpected overnight stay and two new tires, I was on my way—but not for long.

Because the dealership was far from my preplanned route, I temporarily abandoned the directions that Mapquest had provided. Straying off a preplanned route in an unfamiliar area is never a good idea, but I had no choice. A short time later, I passed several state troopers waiting by the roadside. Some 15 minutes later, I was the recipient of a citation for going 70 mph, a paltry 15 mph over the antiquated speed limit of 55 mph. I pleaded with the officer for a warning, but he was not interested. It seems that I had passed through a radar speed trap designed to catch late morning commuters. Several hours later, adding insult to injury, something hit my windshield so hard that it sounded like a shotgun blast. Although the windshield didn't crack, the impact left an impression—a large one, in fact—about the size of a dollar coin, right in my line of sight.

As if that were not enough excitement, an 18-wheeler almost ran me off the road in Texas. Without warning, while traveling at 65 mph, the big rig entered my lane. I leaned on my horn and flashed my lights, but to no avail. I'm sure it was unintentional; I'm sure the driver had an adequate amount of sleep the night before; and I'm sure there were no illegal stimulants in the driver's circulatory system, but he should have been paying more attention. Talk about a heart-in-your-mouth moment. My pulse rate didn't return to normal for the next 100 miles.

Then, in Utah, on a wide open stretch of deserted highway at 5:00 am, a lone motorcycle rider challenged me to a race. Every time I pulled alongside him, he accelerated furiously and then slowed until I caught up. Why was he trying to race me? Everyone knows that motorcycles are lighter and faster than most cars. The road was deserted and visibility was clear, so I thought about it for a split second, but I had learned my lesson from my earlier speeding ticket. I was tired and had experienced enough bad luck on my return trip to last a long time. My challenger continued to accelerate from 70 to well over 100 mph as he disappeared into a speck in the distance.

The moral of my story is that when traveling long distances, it's healthier and less stressful to fly than to drive. You'll avoid the potential for tickets, accidents, flat tires, and damaged windshields—all things I didn't take into consideration in my original evaluation. You'll also be able to avoid the long-term impact on your well being from a steady diet of fast food, snacks, and excessive amounts of coffee, and sugar. Suddenly, driving no longer seems like the best alternative. Next time I'll fly.

16:32 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Though I can't explain why, competitive advertising really bothers me. While this type of advertising is nothing new, lately I've seen more and more of it, especially by major automakers. Ford, Hyundai, BMW, Toyota and others are currently running ads that present competitors in a less-than-positive light.

In a previous blog, I shared my thoughts on recent TV commercials that compared one Hyundai model to a BMW 5 Series. While this type of advertising may communicate that Hyundai vehicles offer great value, I think the comparison is reaching too far—Hyundai is a mass market brand and BMW is a premium brand. Similarly, I think recent commercials for the Ford Edge—in which Ford compares the Edge to the BMW X5 for acceleration and to the Lexus RX 350 for quietness—also stretch the limits. While the Edge is certainly popular among consumers—it was recently ranked Most Appealing Midsize Multi-activity Vehicle by J.D. Power and Associates—the fact that it "beat" the BMW X5 by .02 seconds to 60 mph or that it is marginally quieter than the Lexus is not that impressive.

Toyota and BMW do not typically engage in this type of competitive advertising. However, this seems to be changing as well. Several times during the past few weeks I've noticed a Toyota TV ad sponsored by the Southern California Toyota Dealers Association that compares the new Tundra to the Ford F-150. The commercial features a Tundra owner talking about his previous experience towing a trailer with his F-150. He mentions that the F-150 "kinda struggled" to get up a hill with the trailer, whereas his new Tundra performed the same feat with ease. I was surprised to see this type of advertising from Toyota. Although Toyota compares the Tundra in TV advertising to "competitive trucks," this is the first time I've seen the names of specific competitors mentioned.

I was also surprised to see a recent BMW commercial touting the automaker's Ultimate Service program, which provides no cost maintenance for the first 50,000 miles. The commercial showed a Lexus model and explained that owners of some other luxury brands pay thousands of dollars each year for service. They followed up that effort several weeks later with a similar commercial. The opening shot featured a gaggle of luxury cars from various automakers traveling down a freeway with a BMW. At the last second, the BMW exits the freeway to demonstrate that BMW is different with its free maintenance program.

I don't know why this type of advertising bothers me. I guess I'm old fashioned. I think that auto manufacturers—in fact, all product manufacturers in all industries—should communicate the features and benefits of their own products without slamming the competition. As consumers, we can make up our own mind and decide the relative merits of various automobiles and other products. We can do the research, test drive various models, and come to our own conclusions. We don't need advertisers to tell us what to think.

10:45 | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to my calculations, I saved a total of 4.3 hours—262 minutes to be exact—last year thanks to the automatic convenience features on my car, a 2006 BMW 3 Series, a 330i to be exact. To what noble purpose have I applied those 4.3 hours? I couldn't tell you, but I do know that these features have improved my quality of life, and in some cases, they have enhanced my personal safety as well.

With the headlight switch adjusted to automatic, I have eliminated the need to turn a switch or pull a knob to activate and deactivate the headlamps. At night, the lights turn on automatically, without any effort on my part. During the day, the lights come on only when necessary—such as when driving through a tunnel or on a heavily shaded road. Although at first I paid close attention to the system each time it activated—to ensure that it worked properly—these days it is conspicuous by its absence when I'm behind the wheel of other cars without this time-saving feature. Time saved annually not using headlight switch: 55 minutes.

With automatic-dimming mirrors, adjusting the rear-view mirror to eliminate glare is no longer required, and similarly, returning the mirror to its day position becomes unnecessary. Auto-dimming side mirrors ensure that cars behind are clearly visible when changing lanes or passing other vehicles at night. Getting rid of distracting glare from vehicles as they approach from behind saves time by allowing me to focus on what is ahead rather than what is behind. Time saved annually not adjusting mirrors: 69 minutes.

When it's raining—which is not often in Southern California—I simply flick the windshield-wiper stalk to activate the automatic function. This ensures that the wipers keep pace in case of a possible downpour. When the rain intensifies, the wipers speed up, and when the rain slows, so do the wipers. I rarely, if ever, need to switch between low- and high-speed settings. In addition, the wipers keep pace with the car. If the car speeds up, so do the wipers. When the car slows down, as when approaching a stop sign or traffic light, the wipers slow down as well, and when the car comes to a stop, so do the wipers. Time saved annually when it rains: 13 minutes.

The automatic audible back-up sensor sounds a continuous alert when the car is in reverse and approaching an obstacle. It works even when the obstacle is very low to the ground, such as when I'm about to back over the edge of the curb rather than down my driveway. When backing up near a fence, car, or other object alongside the vehicle, the system emits a series of beeps for three seconds, which should be long enough to alert the driver that a potential hazard exists next to the vehicle. Three seconds is just long enough to make me cautious, but not long enough to annoy. Time saved annually backing up: 83 minutes.

Without a doubt, the most interesting feature on my car is Comfort Access. With this convenience feature, touching the door handle is all that's required to unlock and enter the vehicle as long as the key fob is on my person or in my hand. To lock the car, I simply touch a ridged portion of the door handle. This convenience, combined with pushbutton start, makes it so I can enter and start my car without using a key. There's no key receptacle on the steering column; only a button on the dash that reads "Start on/off." Time saved entering and starting my car: 42 minutes annually.

I've become so accustomed to these convenience features that when I drive my wife's BMW X3, a relatively new 2005 model, I consider it old-fashioned. Things I take for granted in my car become an annoyance in her car. Pressing the key fob to unlock the door is the first inconvenience, inserting a metal key into the ignition adds to my annoyance, and manually turning on the lights feels like real work. But what really bothers me, more than anything else, is her key ring as it continually brushes against my leg as I drive. Not needing a key to start your car: priceless.

12:52 | Permalink | Comments (0)

A late '60s TV commercial for a brand of slim cigarettes targeted to women consumers touted: "You've Come A Long Way Baby." That same slogan can be used to describe a shift in women's non-luxury vehicle choices. Today, women don't want just sensible, stodgy models. They want to take a step out—whether it's in a sporty compact, a stylish crossover or a sporty midsize car.

A profile of my own car ownership history illustrates this shift. I started driving in my brother's Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda—a muscular convertible in banana yellow. After graduating from college and getting married, I switched to an efficient orange Mazda GLC that parked easily on New York City streets. During years as a mom, I owned and drove several GM midsize utilities to carry groceries, stow surf boards and wet suits, haul baseball paraphernalia and ferry teenage boys.

Now that the boys are mostly grown, I traded for a compact crossover with some amenities. But my next move—I'm now in the market for something fun—is probably a Saturn Sky, or if I have my ultimate wish, an '07 Lotus Exige S that can push 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. So I've come full circle from a used but flashy muscle mover back in the '70s to a sleek, modern roadster—sensibly priced and with better gas mileage.

As my choices show, women have come a long way with the vehicles that they find most engaging. In 2002, the five most appealing or pleasing non-luxury models with women who bought new vehicles (listed below) were large and midsize car models, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2002 Automotive Performance, Execution and Layout (APEAL) Study, which asks new-vehicle buyers what they like about the performance and design aspects of their new models after the first 90 days of ownership.

1. Ford Thunderbird - Midsize Premium Sporty Car
2. Chrysler 300 - Large Conventional Car
3. Toyota Avalon - Large Conventional Car
4. Hyundai XG 350 - Midsize Conventional Car
5. Pontiac Firebird - Midsize Sporty Car

Two of the models favored by women buyers in 2002—the Ford Thunderbird and Pontiac Firebird—are no longer on the market.

Today, women have come a little further. The five non-luxury models that women find most appealing this year include more sporty models and several compacts, according to this year's APEAL Study. Several were not even on the market in 2002, and others are next-generation versions of near icons. The top five this year are:

1. Volkswagen GTI - Compact Conventional Car
2. Scion tC - Compact Sporty Car
3. Ford Mustang - Midsize Sporty Car
4. Nissan Altima - Midsize Conventional Car
5. Ford Edge - Midsize Crossover

Today, "You've Come A Long Way Baby" means that women find new designs and brand new models exciting. A wide variety of vehicle types and designs are available today, which gives women buyers a myriad of choices. Women seem to appreciate vehicles that express their lifestyles and also like models that step out—whether it's a sporty compact, a stylish crossover or a take-notice midsize car. One major criterion that hasn't changed or shifted much during the past five years is that none of the top five non-luxury choices among women is a minivan, SUV or a pickup truck. If you are a female vehicle owner and have a different vehicle profile, I would love for you to share it with us because we've all come a long way.

10:51 | Permalink | Comments (0)