Gridlock Around CSI: Catch 22

It's 6:15; your 4:40 class has let out early. Fantastic. Now it's time to make a mad dash to your car in order to preempt CSI's infamous gridlock.

But you're not alone. Thousands of other students have the same idea, and they're powerwalking harder than a Ft. Lauderdale granny. Inside your head, a debate rages: if you walk normally, those five extra minutes your godlike professor has blessed you with will be wasted. You'll certainly be mired in the sea of tail lights and exhaust fumes.

If you step your game up a bit, you've got a shot to get off campus before that ditz in the blue Civic. Look at her, wearing those ridiculous bug-eye sunglasses even though it's already dark out. You really want to lose to her?

Or you could go all out, appearances be damned. Usain Bolt would be proud, gazing upon your majestic form sprint across two lawns and half a parking lot to reach your ride.

There's no time to waste. After you finally reach your vehicle, hurl your books into your passenger seat, assuming you don't have a passenger. Do it anyway if you have one. Call it collateral damage, an understood risk your companion accepted when they asked for a ride. A few papercuts and a bloody nose are worth it if you don't get caught in gridlock.

Except that, no matter how quickly you move, or how aggressively you leave your parking spot, you'll still be forced to wait in the queue. Take your pick of exits: Forest Hill, Victory, or even that semi-secret exit between 2R and the gravel lot. None is any better than the others.

So what is to be done? More exits, you say? More peace officers and NYPD Traffic to regulate the flow? A double-lane Campus Drive? This is madness!

Yes. But this is also Staten Island.

The fact of the matter is that, despite any advances the administration could make within the campus grounds, they can't fix the main problem: the outlying streets. Victory Boulevard is one of the island's main arteries, granting access to much of the mid-island and North shore areas in addition to thruways to Brooklyn and Jersey. It's going to be crowded for the majority of the day, every day.

Many students know that though, so they try to go out the "back door": Forest Hill. The problem with that area is that the City of New York obviously never expected or accounted for the ludicrous density of traffic the area sees these days. So there's one lane going off campus to one lane on Forest Hill Road for thousands of cars attempting to vacate the premises.

The road runs as only a single lane down to Richmond Avenue, two miles from campus. That's a long way to send a few thousand cars at rush hour. Naturally, the intersection of Forest Hill Avenue and Rockland Avenue exacerbates the problem; it's not a three-way light, despite the intersection's popularity as a cross-street for students heading towards Bay Terrace and New Dorp. The queue backs up farther and farther, and quite quickly the small Forest Hill exit is overwhelmed. And you wondered why it takes nearly half an hour to get off campus that way.

The tertiary exit is only open after 4:40, so it's a no go if you're looking to leave during the noon - two PM rush. It leaves you on Willowbrook Road, which is only really useful if you live in Emerson or Todt Hill. However, you can also construct a route to West Brighton from that exit, so long as you know how far down Slosson Avenue runs and what it intersects with. Take Slosson down to Martling, and cut across to Clove Road. If you're lucky you'll avoid a hell of a lot of traffic that way.

But if you're part of the majority who use the other two exits, what are you to do? Does Navigator Vincent have a magical route for you?

Nope. We're all screwed. Staten Island is overpopulated, and CSI is over-enrolled. Gridlock is just a side effect, folks. Time to blow up some cars. Anyone got a rocket launcher?

Five Things Your Car Doesn't Need

As brought to you by MSN Autos.

Most of the descriptions are only snippets of information, but they ring true regardless - e.g. if you aren't tuned for 93 instead of 87, running 93 will not help you or your engine. Unless your idea of helping your engine is knocking and forcing the ECU to retard or advance timing, you sadist.

Second, concerning nitrogen-filled tires: why in the name of all that's logically sound would anyone be duped into believing that pumping nitrogen would be beneficial? Think back to grade school, kiddies; atmospheric "air" is almost 80% nitrogen. Even if there was an upside to switching, it'd be insignificant at best. On a good day. If the nitrogen was blessed by the Pope. Twice. Add to that the facts that you have to pay to get the nitrogen, plus they over-inflated your tires, and it's simply moronic. I understand what they're doing, that's the scam = they over-inflate your tires so less of the rubber contacts the tarmac, therefore lower rolling resistance and some increase in MPG. But then, without that proper contact, you lose grip and prematurely wear your tires. I'll stay old school on this one, thanks.

Third - wait, what? Do I really need to say anything about "magic fuel-saving" items? If you're foolish enough to believe those ads and not do any research, you deserved to be ripped off. The same goes for cure-alls that promise to "make your car like new." Next.

That brings me to the final snippet, the only one I find myself disagreeing with: wheels, stereo systems, and other electronics. The MSN author, James Tate, takes a wholly pragmatic and not completely unfathomable position - leave your car alone, spending money on silly things like that will not help the resale value of your car.

And that opinion is fine. If you're 70 and drive a Camry to bingo in Ft. Lauderdale. And you don't want to know anything about your car except to "stick it in D and go." What about normal car guys, though? If you want to spend $900 on a set of these beauties (Enkei RPF1's) with tires,



what's wrong with that? Lighter wheels and better rubber than stock is always a good thing if you care about handling. Which you should, since it's just a bit important to have a good-handling car.

A better head unit and set of speakers is always an upgrade too, especially if you're an audiophile like myself.

Sure, these things might not add to the resale value of a car, but honestly, if you're worried so much about resale value, you either own the wrong car (e.g. a new Accord sedan) or you're missing the enjoyment of driving.



If you don't like that, you might be in the wrong hobby.

Rock It Like Block: the New Fiesta and Why You Should Buy Hatchbacks

Ken Block's been rocking a Fiesta WRC for a few months now, and he seems to like it.

See, America? Hatchbacks never were uncool, you've just been unwilling to embrace them ever since the rise of the SUV. But your Sequoia can't do this.



Let's see you pull that off in a Hummer after dropping the kids off.

The Next Fun Family Sedan? Have the Japanese Done It Again?

The mid-size affordable sedan market is as diverse as the main hall of the United Nations; the Koreans, Americans, Japanese, and Germans all sit around the table, offering their various goods and ideals to the North American market. With such a multitude of manufacturers, it'd be no surprise if the cars, while all ultimately aimed at the same crowd (families), bring differing philosophies to the plate.

In the last series of makeovers and model generations, the underdog and plucky Mazda6 won my heart. It was smaller than the rest of its competitors, but also lighter and less apologetic about being a car. It didn't have a plushy ride like a Malibu and the steering inspired a level of confidence not often seen in a car of its class, unlike a Camry. But the Mazda6 didn't just come out of left field - it was a 12 year-old boy with his hat on backwards running onto the grass.

And he turned out to be one of the best, albeit also one of the most ignored at what he did. So Mazda decided he'd be "beefed up" in the redesign, targeting a more "serious" mainstream crowd. Not the first time an automaker's done that in recent years, and I can't really blame them for doing it. Example: remember the 2000-era Altima? Kind of small for a mid-size, but tough and likable. It was a cellar-dweller in sales, so Nissan introduced a bigger, beefier Altima around 2003 with a VQ-series 270HP V6 option. Sales ballooned as much as the Altima's body.

So, where is the family man to aim his sights if he wants something that's affordable, good to look at, reasonable to insure, safe, and inexpensive enough to repair (sorry VW, but getting German parts will still cost you big time)?



This looks promising: the Suzuki Kizashi. The front fascia is reminiscent of the 5th generation Jetta, but that's not a particular problem for me. the tribute to Deutscheland continues 'round the back with a very BMW E92 5-series look. I'm not the biggest fan of the E92, but again, there are worse cars to draw influence from.

But looks only tell half of the story; Suzuki's biggest selling point of the Kizashi is its optional AWD system. Build your Kizashi the right way and, in theory, you could have a good-looking, affordable sedan that's got monumental grip and control for around 23 grand. And you wouldn't have a small, spartan piece of machinery like you'd get from Subaru for that price. Sounds good. A little too good.

Here's the bombshell, and it's a pretty big one: the AWD system is only available with a CVT. I'm sorry, but every enthusiast knows you just don't get the same feeling with an automatic, especially a CVT automatic. And I'm sorry, but with the way I'd want the Kizashi optioned as a father/family man, in GTS trim with fog lights and AWD, it comes to ~ $26,700. That's very close to what I'd pay for a Subaru WRX 5-door. And that has a real transmission and [arguably] the best AWD system in the world.

Sorry, Suzuki. The allure just isn't there once you know there's no six-speed manual transmission/AWD combination and no engine choice (185HP is all you'll get in a Kizashi). Maybe you'll steal some sales from the Koreans in lower model forms, but once the price goes past 22 grand, you're just out of your element, and not unique enough to be a true underdog. It looks like cars like the original Mazda6 just won't exist anymore.

Sorry, kid. You coulda been a contenda.

A Ton and a Half of Steel, or Something More?

At some point in ownership, regardless of whether or not you're a car aficionado, you take a look at your ride and you're reminded of the time that's passed in your life during that period.

Whether or not you take that thought any further though, is up to you.

I see a car as more than just a machine, more than just a collection of plastic bits, aluminum and iron engine pieces and steel body frame. It can symbolize any number of things, like primal freedom or escape from daily drudgery. Just you and your four-wheeled transport as you travel to wherever your wallet and your gas tank endure.

It can be a vacation with your mates to the shore for a weekend of drunken antics, enjoying youth and irresponsibility. Or a road trip across two states to see your favorite band do their thing live, your sound system a euphony of their art.

Eventually, all those memories become something more than just mental - they're attached to the object in your driveway. If you spend enough time with a car, you feel a connection to an almost human-level bond; you can almost feel what your machine feels, like it's become a close friend.

And like a close friend, when it hurts...you hurt. I was miserable for weeks until my buddy got back from the "hospital" after he took a beating from a Tahoe.



Stick with the same ride long enough, and it will symbolize both how your life has changed in that time and the places you've driven to - it will be a steel version of you. That's why I love "used" cars so much. Whenever I get behind the wheel of someone else's car, I always wonder, "Where has you been? What kind of stories could you tell about your adventures, if you could speak? Who were your previous owners? Did they treat you as one of their own, or were you neglected, simply partitioned as a tool to enhance their lives?"

Whenever I see a car like that, ignored and hurting, I hear it screaming, "Help me!" like an abandoned dog. Sure, he may be a bit scruffy and needs some medicine to get him going again, but you get the sense that if you take care of him, he'll be the best damn dog you'll ever have.

To Hell with the SUV, I Gots Me a Crossover

It used to be that anyone who wanted to own a vehicle that was capable of throwing anything at it would buy a chunky offroader, like the ironically named Suburban. Soccer moms and middle-aged macho men on a quest to reclaim some of their youthful virility alike clamored over the steel behemoths in the 90s. Back then, most SUVs were basically just truck chasses fitted with Jeep-like bodies, resulting in a vehicle that could not only haul a ton of concrete but also a platoon of twelve year-olds on their way to the state Little League championship.

Or so it used to be. However, as much as I like Big McLargeHuge 4x4's, there was an inherent question on everyone's mind when they saw one of these rolling fortresses on the road: "What happens if that thing hits me?"

In the 90s? This is pretty much what would happen.



Now granted, that's a rather grisly revelation, isn't it? Not that it should come as a surprise to you that the big guy would go Hulk Smash on the little guy in a fight. Still, this was a huge cause for concern - more and more people felt unsafe in normal cars, and traded in econoboxes for Ft. Knox on wheels, believing that they'd be safer.

Except that this was the 90s. No clever stability control. No traction control. A small enough percentage of vehicles had ABS that GM flaunted it on various models like the Lumina and Cutlass Supreme. So, perhaps you'd be safe, assuming you didn't have to stop quickly. Or turn onto an offramp in inclement weather. Or switch directions.

Basically, you were screwed if you in any way shape or form deviated from stoplight to stoplight. But as automakers began to figure that out later in the decade into the next, consumers had begun anew the search for more economical transportation. Enter possibly the worst car of all time, the Toyota Prius. With gasoline prices in America spiking well over $4/gallon (though our European and Asian friends have been paying this price and far higher for decades) around 2004, big SUVs that did 9 miles to the gallon were no longer trendy. Gas mileage was "in."

Yet, the consumers still wanted to retain a sense of command on the road, along with the perception of "safety in size." Enter what the automotive companies call "crossovers," car chasses with SUV-like bodies.



Take the aptly-named Nissan Murano for example. You'd have to be a moron to buy it, an Altima in a new suit. Or the CX-7. Or the failed Endeavor from Mitsubishi. All the problems of an SUV (poor handling, dreadful to mediocre MPG, unwieldy in parking situations) with none of the benefits (hauling room/power, offroad experience). And, despite even BMW's best go at it, the crossover can't defy physics and keep up with a similarly-outfitted car.

All this vain effort because consumers don't want to embrace the hatchback or return to the wagon. But that's just fine with me, especially when I can fit all of my things into the hatch of a 2010 Subaru STi, and I'll still speed shift past you. And get better mileage while cruising.



Do it right.

Mercury Gets the Axe

In the past few years, the Big Three have certainly been pressed for success in the US. Low sales coupled with superfluous brands (like now-defunct Pontiac) forced GM to finally condense its brands. Dodge has retracted a few models, like the last iteration of the SRT-4 because no one wanted to buy a 285HP ice cream truck without all wheel drive. Ford, however, had been mostly exempt, circling the wagons of FLM (Ford, Lincoln, Mercury) dealerships nationwide.

Until, this week, the inevitable: Mercury is headed for the parking lot in the sky. I'm sure some are saddened by this, given the brand's 70+ years of existence, highlighted by the beastly Cougar XR7.

In the olden days, Mercury was meant to be the middle ground for FoMoCo; consumers would start out with a Ford for low-cost transport, move up to Mercury for a little luxury, and shoot for the whole shebang with a Lincoln. But the fact remains: for the past 20 years, the brand has been pumping out nothing but Ford and Lincoln clones like the Grand Marquis.

There's no need to worry about Ford, though. Just wait until we get the Fiesta and new Focus. Bet you a tenner it'll give the Prius monkeys something to shove in their energy-absorbing sunroofs.

Swagger Wagon...Wait, What?!

Maybe this post is more along the expertise lines of John at Tivo's Worst Enemy, but I had to share this. It's well-known that Toyota's recent reputation (aside from the whole throttle-sticking catastrophe) has crept closer to the old Cadillac I-don't-want-to-actually-feel-the-road vibe. Toyotas of the past decade have been generally soulless and boring, save perhaps the last generation Celica, which even I as no fan of post-1995 Toyota admit would look good parked in my driveway.

So it's not surprising that Toyota's been looking to reconstruct their public image. They've set their sites on a younger demographic: new families. In comes the newly redesigned Sienna, probably the most attractive minivan to be sold in the US since the Mazda 5. And with a new generation of vehicle comes a new commercial. This one, for the Sienna, is just so damn hilarious. It's not going to convince someone like me to go buy any new Toyota, let alone a minivan; however, it's given me a bit of hope that someone at Toyota has a sense of humor again.



"Where my mother/fathers at?"

Forum Wars

For anyone who's been on a car forum, you know the kind of things that are often said. It doesn't matter what manufacturer or car you support, there's always a rival. Got a Mustang? Good luck befriending the Camaro guys. Own an Evo? The Subaru guys probably don't like you very much. Drive a Civic?

Sorry, no one likes you. It's just the nature of the community. Everyone's tired of VTEC trash talkers.

Regardless, there's been animosity between car groups since the days of Detroit muscle. Manufacturers have been competing with each other officially for decades in organized racing leagues like the Rolex GT series, NASCAR, and the World Rally Championship.

But all of those events are official, track-based, and televised. What happens in real life, on the road? Groups go back and forth spouting numbers and (often nonsensical) arguments and race in the streets. Not the best move, considering street racing does happen to be illegal. So what's the alternative? You can bring your ride to a track, pay fees for equipment and time, and be on your way.

But that settles disputes between two individuals. And the whole world can't see the results, save for often amateurish footage uploaded to Youtube. Even then, rival forums will still bicker back and forth, throwing scenario upon scenario into the fray (e.g. "You only won because you're turbo'd," "I forgot to turn traction control off," etc.), and nothing is truly decided.

Until now. The Forum Wars promised to cut the BS and take two drivers from two rival forums, have them compete and televise it. The Speed Channel has had successful shows like this before (Pass Time, Pinks), so I expected The Forum Wars to be just as polished. It's a great concept to base a show on.

But poorly executed. Within five minutes of the first episode, it's easy to see the flaw of the show: the competitions. 1/8 mile runs don't even highlight the faster car, since there's not really enough distance for the cars to flex their muscles. The figure 8 is nothing more than a skidpad, so there goes any skill factor. I do like the road course idea, but again, it's poorly executed. Less than 1 minute runs? Why not have the drivers take a couple laps of a real track (not one comprised of cones) and compare the best times? I don't think I saw any of the drivers push their cars at all during the competitions, even though Mr. V-Dub's GTI sounded like it was being pushed. But that's what you get when you bring a show car to a track. Silly V-Dub, tire rub is for noobs.

Additionally, the producers have tried far too hard to give the show a "hardcore racer" vibe; it didn't work for Bullrun, it's not going to work for The Forum Wars.

Could've been a great show, but like the Pontiac Aztek, it was muddled in production. And it has changed nothing.

British Anti-Texting PSA Crosses the Pond

Note, while this PSA obviously depicts a non-existent event, its message is strong nonetheless. It's a bit gory, but it needs to be in order to get its point across to its audience.



Unfortunately, that target audience is my demographic, the 18-24 insurance group, hence the teens in the commercial. Unfair you say? Bollocks. Incidents like this are the reason my insurance premium is so high. It's why your insurance premium is high. There are links on the Youtube page to studies about texting while driving that indicate it's more disorienting than driving drunk.

More disorienting than driving drunk. Think about that.

Look, I'm not going to get on a soapbox and say I've never answered a text while driving. I'm not the Pope or Gandhi reincarnate. But I realized how distracted I was after the first time - I almost missed a stop sign. That was enough.

If it's not enough for you, as the reader, check the video. This is one of the most moronic ways you could die, but worse yet you can take innocents out. This isn't Paperboy; you don't get 200 points for taking out Grandma with your front bumper.

Drive safe, folks. And put your damn phones down.

Product Review: Bridgestone B450

I've been wanting to review some kind of product for a few months now, but I just couldn't come to a good conclusion. Would it be fair to review my own car?


Hello there mister cameraman.

But I decided against that. The Malibu is my daily driver, but it's not a new car by any means. Therefore, I believe it'd be unfair to hold it to the same testing standards as say, a 2010 Malibu. And I can't get a hold of one of those for a proper review (not yet, at least).

I also don't know any close friends who've recently purchased a new ride, but I do have one in mind for a future post - look out Scott, I'm gunning for that pretty new 135i of yours! I want to get video for that review as well, ala Top Gear. But without access to a track or closed road, it'll prove quite difficult to push the car (if you know a place or a person who could provide this, you know how to contact me, guys).

So then, onto the review! What is the Bridgestone B450? It's a standard DOT compound tire originally produced a few years back for some passenger cars and light trucks (like my Malibu).



On the Malibu, the B450 is a 205/65R15 size tires, with a speed rating of S and a UTQG of 360B B. What does that all mean? It means that it's a 205mm wide tire (across from top of one sidewall to the other) with a 65 series sidewall. What that means is that this tire size's sidewall height (from rim to tread) is 65% of its section width. The measurement is the tire's section height, and also referred to as the tire's series, profile or aspect ratio. The higher the number, the taller the sidewall; the lower the number, the lower the sidewall. Basically, a 65 sidewall is a CHUNKY tire, much like a truck's.

The R indicates that it's a radial tire. There are a few other classifications of DOT-legal tires, but it's not important to know them; radials represent the vast majority of tires sold (98% according to tirerack.com). The 15 indicates that the wheel (or rim) the tire's mounted on is 15 inches, a rather small rim.

The speed rating represents not what the tire's peak speed limit is, as it is often thought, but what the max speed the tire can handle is for roughly one hour. S represents 112MPH, but that's irrelevant since the Malibu is electronically limited to 108MPH.

Lastly, 360B B. The number is a code for treadwear, i.e. how much life you're gonna get out of your rubber (the higher the number, the better the treadwear, in theory). I've seen numbers from 200 to 600; generally, grippier tires will wear more quickly, since they're contacting the tarmac/concrete/various road surfaces better. The first letter stands for the tire's traction ability on a scale from AA to C. The B450 is rated as a B, which puts it on the lower end of the spectrum of grip. The second letter is also a B, but this time represents the temperature scale (another AA to C scale; the ability of a tire to disperse heat at higher speeds, i.e. not burst from temperature buildup). The B level is 100-115MPH, pretty much what you would reasonably expect from an S-rated tire.

If you didn't know what those numbers and letters on your tires meant (aside from the logo, obviously), now you do. And you can select tires with much more confidence.

Now, how have these tires fared on my Malibu? Remember, it's my daily driver, and I live in New York City. These all-seasons deal with just about any weather condition you can think of, so they've gotta perform at all times. Have they?

Well, let's look at some more numbers and abbreviations. The B450s are the OEM (Original Equipment from the Manufacturer) tires, which on my '04 Malibu makes them about 6 years old - ancient for tires. They've currently got about 50,000 miles on them, which is a decent amount of miles for a passenger car tire set. They're due to be replaced: the sidewalls are cracking, the compound is dissipating and the tread is dangerously low. Being the poor college student that I am, I toughed it out through the last winter with these, but they need to go.

How do they perform? Keep in mind the Malibu is by no means a performance-oriented vehicle, since its target demographic is the 35+ crowd. Which includes your mom, your dad, and likely your grandparents, likely people who wouldn't know to tell an apex from apex seals.

In the dry, they produce predictable understeer when pushed, as expected in any front-driver. They're also grippy enough to let you easily catch the car during lift-off oversteer. High-speed cruising is comfortable and reasonably quiet - there is a fair amount of tire noise, but nothing that'll really bother you. Turn on the radio. Braking from high speed is also what you'd expect for the tire, nothing to write home about but nothing that should cause major problems.

But throw some rain into the mix, and look out. You'll understeer badly even at 25MPH, traction control or not. The car is fighting to find grip that the tire simply can't give it. Hydroplaning can get pretty interesting at 65MPH, so I suggest you be quite awake with these guys. Braking performance does drop, as is reasonable to expect, but these tires border on dangerous in moderate to heavy rain. Coupled with a 3300lb. car, I sternly advise caution.

If you live anywhere that gets a fair amount of snow, though, get these off your car. They're horrendous in the snow, as I found out the hard way - a Toyota Tercel. A tire should not produce catastrophic understeer at 10-15MPH without warning. I could've forgiven it and marked the incident in the "I'm a moron" category if it was on ice or even heavy snow. But less that 3 inches of snow? Unacceptable. Dangerous.

The Bridgestone B450 is okay if you live somewhere without snow, but then, why not just get a summer tire compound? You'll get loads more grip. If you want an all-season in this size, I recommend these, a set of Continentals: Continental ContiExtremeContact

That's what I'm going with on my car.

'Til then, I won't be SPEED SHIFTing the Malibu.

GM is Back to General Motors

Here's a story I wanted to talk about last week.

You know those fellows over at General Motors? Maybe you recognize the oh-so-clever nickname given to the Detroit giant after the Obama administration bailout of the company: Government Motors. I always wondered if GM would have enough time and sense to pay off that $8 billion debt.

Consider the direction they were headed in for the past twenty years, I don't think it was much of a leap. But lo and behold:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gm_loans

Five years ahead of schedule? I'm sorry, that's impressive.

What should you take away from this chapter of GM's story? Making a good product is the easy part. GM was making good products in 2007 with the now deceased Saturn brand. But when you've made a half-assed, non-competitive product for two decades, it's going to take some time for people to take you seriously again.

It looks like America has accepted GM again, even if the media still likes having their punching bag. Maybe they'll move on to Chrysler next. But disparaging Chrysler at this point is like yelling at an old hound at the end of his ropes. Just let 'em go in peace.

Next post: product review.

KITT's Bastard Child

Remember when David Hasselhoff was cool? Wait, no, I don't either.

Okay, but you remember when he was Michael Knight, crusading the west with KITT, his AI-infused '82 Trans Am?


For reference, The Hoff and KITT.

KITT was not only the nickname for Knight's Pontiac, but also for the sci-fi artificial intelligence. At the time, of course, pure fiction. But with the advent on advanced computer technology in the last ten years, perhaps it doesn't seem so unfeasible. We have cars that can jar you awake, and ones that can brake for you if you're not paying attention like you should (or you just suck), so it seems like every year we're moving closer to an industry dominated by the theories of Issac Asimov.


Audi in the silver screen adaptation of "I, Robot."

So we've established that it wouldn't be entirely preposterous for a car to come equipped with a program bearing some sort of resemblance to KITT, with the rate automotive technology has moved in the past 10 years. Since the beginning of the electronic era in automobiles, though (mid 80s), the Japanese have become major players, if not the mikado of, the world market. Therefore, you might quite reasonably hypothesize that the first production car with such a system would be Japanese.

But no, it's not a bento box. It's bratwurst.



Oh yes, it's those kooky Germans at Mini (remember that Mini is owned by the Bavarians these days). They're calling their new package the "Camden Package," which immediately suggests to me that you might be shot while driving it (Camden, NJ is what I'm referencing for those on the slow bus). Which is fine with me, because from what I can tell from the Car & Driver video, the engineers who thought this'd be a good idea should be shot. Repeatedly. With big guns.

The Camden Package is mostly aesthetic touches (different paint, some bigger wheels), but central to it is KITT's kounterpart: "Mission Control."

Houston, we have a problem. I want to shove the gear lever into that fancy LCD screen. I think that may cause some technical difficulties.

If you're going to get a Mini, you only need to know one trim level: S. Get a Cooper S. 170HP via a turbocharger, a six-speed manual, and legendary handling. Two things BMW didn't mess about with. Happiness ensues.

"Sit down, shut up, and drive."

The Nissan [Game]Cube and the Box-Car Trend

What's that in your rear view mirror? A box truck? An '80s Chevy van? A loaf of Wonderbread with 15 inch rims?

Odds are these days what you're actually witnessing is one of the multiple "box-shaped cars" Asian cars on the road today: the unsoulful Kia Soul, ruler-inspired Scion xB, oddball-yet-unique Honda Element, or the big-in-Japan Nissan Cube.



Oh wait, wrong cube. But you've got to admit the resemblance is striking.


It's...cubey.

I happened to see a Cube parked on campus today. For the first time, I was able to do a walkaround in person; I'd previously relied on other journalists' coverage via cameras to make a visual judgment on the Datsun(whoops, Freudian slip. I meant Nissan). I must say, the styling is just...odd. I understand that the car's been sold in Japan for a few years now, so perhaps, one might think, that the new lines would simply take a while to "sink in."

But hell, they said that about the new Accord sedan, too. And it still looks like an eggy mess to me.

The Cube, like all the other "box" cars, poses a simple yet crucial physics conflict: a high center of gravity means poor weight balance, and therefore sub-par handling. Which is a euphemism for "handles like a truck." Or your mother-in-law after she's had a few Buds. Add to that microscopic wheels wrapped by tiny tires (I believe 175mm wide on the base Cube), and you'd basically be driving around your Kenmore washing machine. And your appliance isn't exactly aerodynamic - 24MPG city and 29MPG highway (stats: ) are pathetic numbers for a 1.6L engine in something that weighs less than 2800lbs. I might only get 19MPG city in my '04 Malibu, but I also get 32MPG highway. In a machine that tips the scale at 3300lbs. Why? It's not the rolling equivalent of a brick. There was some attempt to help the body cleave through the air more efficiently.

And the utility isn't even good enough to overcome the Cube's massive failures. There isn't that much space in the back. Pass.


"I got soul! I'm super bad!" James Brown would turn over in his grave.

The next contender for the flyweight title, the Kia Soul.

Now, you might remember the first Kias that were exported to the US about twenty years ago - they were utter garbage, reminiscent of the Chrysler K-cars Detroit pumped out after Daimler's first bailout (though that debt was repaid, with interest - the people made money on that deal). A decade later, Kia had made some progress, but still remained a very tiny portion of the market in America, still below their Korean counterpart Hyundai. It wasn't until very recently (i.e. the past 3 years) that Kia has really stepped up their game, with models like the Forte (which cribs the look of the present-generation Civic in an overt manner), and now the Soul.

Or so the hype would have you believe.

The main problem with the Soul is the same as the Cube: high center of gravity, though at least Kia give the Soul some decent rubber. It's also, surprisingly, quite a nice place to be - unexpected for a North American market compact car (that isn't a Mk. 1 Focus). Though, like any boxy car interior, the gear lever is alllllll the way down there, which only exacerbates the feeling of truckin'(Jerry Garcia would be proud).

Kia did get something rights with the Soul, though - that slicked back loaf of bread at least also has a higher ride height than a normal compact. Where the Soul fails at physics it tries to make up for in daily-driver comfort - it's easier to climb in and out of than most compacts. Now, that might not matter so much to me, a 20 year old man (and I'm apparently part of the target demographic for the Soul, 18-24 year old single males. Much like Toyota's Scion brand). However, that characteristic can become very important to an older crowd.

My father, a man in his mid-fifties, for example, likes the Soul. And he's at the point where he doesn't give a damn about hitting apexes and running slaloms.

So, job done, Kia. Just market it to the right crowd.

It must be said, though, that if you're looking for Tonka Toys' adaptation of the four-wheeled boxcar, the land of the rising sun is where you want set your sights. Or East Liberty, Ohio, since the Element's assembled there.


Look, it's been photographed on dirt. You know that means it's "rugged."

I understand what Honda was trying to do with the Element; it's actually kind of a cool boxcar. Yes, I'm calling it a car. At best it's a small crossover, sharing a chassis with both the Civic and CR-V. While its market angle is supposed to be a "go-anywhere" mentality, the Element is no SUV, nor a decent offroader.

And I don't want to hear anything about that "Real-Time 4WD" nonsense, because it doesn't really work. Don't believe me? Watch as Honda's 4WD system, along with a few others, fails.



Want a small, chunky SUV to do some light trailblazing? Get a Forester. At least that way you'll have a serious AWD system and the ground clearance to go farther offroad than the soccer field.

The Element isn't what it wants to portray itself as, then. So is it useless? No, actually; the rubber matting Honda equipped instead of carpeting is genius - take the Element to the beach, get sand inside, take a hose and washing the floor right off. Brilliant, actually. Too bad it's mostly a soccer mom-mobile, though it's good for hauling around dirty sports equipment as well. For that reason, the Element passes - better for people to buy Elements than monstrous Suburbans or Lexus GX series. I'd still say a used Focus wagon or even Outback wagon would be money better spent, though.

That takes me to the grand daddy of this group:

Mmm, xB for eXtra Boxy. Paint it brown, and you've got a UPS truck.

The Scion xB first appeared eight or so years ago on our roads, and I'll be damned if it didn't start this whole scene. I never quite caught what was so appealing about the little bugger. Honestly, it really looks like a cardboard box with 14" wheels, and a swollen nose.

That makes sense though. I'd punch whoever styled it.

There's nothing even remotely pleasing about the car. Like going around corners? You won't in this. Far be it from me to tell anyone they bought the wrong car because it's ugly, though, so I'll use logic. (Read: this car will probably kill you in an emergency situation. Handling capabilities do not exist solely for fun.) Obviously, like the other three cars I've mentioned, the xB's designed also failed physics class.

He probably doesn't like corners, either. Both in his styling and his roads. Because the Scion Box has no curves, save for its emblem and its wheels. I'd be willing to bet that if the designer could've work out square wheels though, he'd have done it.

Maybe they should fit one with snowmobile tracks. The car might make aesthetic sense, then.

But really, why were these cars made? Simple: a boxcar is able to provide small overall size, semi-decent fuel economy (for its class), and a large amount of headroom for the occupants. I understand the theory.

Just go get an Impreza hatchback or Focus hatchback. You'll get 90% of the utility with comparable or better fuel economy and three times the driving fun.

Drop off the kids at the mall, then SPEEDSHIFT on the way home.

Another GMC with a Rocky Road Ahead.

Yes, little boy in the corner, stare at GMC's latest car concept: the Granite.

Now, personally, I used to think GMC's lineup of names was silly: Canyon, Sierra, Yukon, etc. They projected a forced image of solidity in a marketing attempt to score male buyers ("Yeah, I just got a YUKON, bro!"). That kind of thing.

But possible misnomers aside, I think they've really got something with the Granite. The concept, if I might say so, is actually pretty good looking, though the rear bumper is reminiscent of a Renault Megane (or as Jeremy Clarkson put it, "Miss I've-had-all-the-pies).


(She's got some junk in the trunk, but that just means a whole lotta lovin'.)

And I'm not a fan of boxy styling. I hate the Scion xB and Kia Soul. Actually, if you look at that picture, it resembles a slicked-back Soul. They could call it the L.A. Looks version.

Hey, Subaru had L.L. Bean. And Ford had Eddie Bauer.

The only worrying part of the whole concept is the suicide doors. They were done away with in the middle of the 20th century because they were a structural weakness in the chassis. Today, with 8000lb. soccer-mom mobiles running rampant in the streets, it's not possible to build a car with no b-pillar. Side-impact crashes would be fatal even at slow speeds.

However, I'd hazard to say that the concept only has that design so the team could easily show off the Jetsons interior. I'd imagine the final project would be more logical.

Good ground clearance, bullish styling, and assumed good daily performance numbers. Concepts like the Granite could be the future for the legions of lobotomy consumers currently rampaging about in Yukons, Land Cruisers, or Pathfinders.

A man can hope.

NYIAS Overview

So I made my way to the New York International Auto Show yesterday (NYIAS for short, because I sure as hell don't want to write it out every time), and was able to get a decent amount of "wandering about" time before it became a full-fledged people zoo.

Yes, it becomes a people zoo, but not simply due to the sheer amount of human bodies in attendance. It's because they are just human bodies, vapidly looking at the sheetmetal with a vague mix of one part intrigue, one part confusion, and two parts stupidity. A word to the wise for this event: go early and make a note of what you want to see the most before you get there. Otherwise, you'll probably be stuck behind the mobs trying to get into the same car.

And God help you if you want to sit in the Camaro SS. Not that it's anything special in the cabin, unless you like huge blind spots.

Most of the crowd density was in places you'd probably expect though: Mustang, Camaro, Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and the Volkswagen Beetle. Oops, I meant the Porches.




Can't deny the similarity in the front fascias.

By the time I was ready to leave (about 3:30), it had grown into a full-scale mob scene. However, I was able to get a few shots. Though most of them had zoo-people wandering in front of the camera ("No respect, I tell ya!"), I was able to salvage a few, which will be put up in a series of articles tonight.

I leave you with a picture that exemplifies my feelings on said people-zoo:



"At first I was like :/. Then I lol'd."

Flat Black is Not the New Black.

Okay, for those out there who don't know, matte finish paint is commonly referred to as "flat" because it's just that - no clearcoat or sparkly reflection of your pearly whites when you look at it.

It was a pretty underground trend five or six years back, mostly on the West Coast. Often, they'd also throw on some black wheels to complement the flat black paint, resulting it what's known as "murdering out" a car - black paint, black rims, dark tint, and usually lowered ride height. Here's an example:



...but we've all come to expect this kind of sillyness from the Civic crowd. No offense to the Honda people, but there are way too many Fast & Furiousers in your bunch, and they kill it for the rest of you. I suggest forcibly removing them with some kind of NOS-powered catapult. The irony alone would be worth it. (For reference, this is what NOS is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide)

Unfortunately, this trend hasn't died.

Like any car fad that gains enough of a following, matte black has been recognized by automakers. And now, they're doing it too.


(Credit to Jalponik for this picture)

It's downright sad to see such a beautiful machine as an R8 violated that way. But at least they didn't give it black rims from the factory. All matte paint does is mask a car's body lines and the angles that make it attractive.

Think about it. Say you have a gorgeous girlfriend or wife, but there are a lot of beautiful women out there. Would you put a paper bag over her head to hide her looks?

It just doesn't make any sense. I'm looking at you, Audi. And you, Paul Walker.

Getting the ball rolling.

Hey all, this is the first post in my blog, Speed Shift!

I encourage anyone who visits this place to check out the links in the sidebar, as well as leave comments on what I'm doing or what you'd like to see me talk about - I want to do stories that not only I care about. Let me know if you want to read about the new Aston Martin, or, more realistically, the new Focus (or anything in between!).