Current Electric Cars…And Why We Don’t Drive ‘Em

Everyone seems to have that one person in their life that seems to drive them up the wall by questioning everything commonly deemed logical. In my life this person is a nice 50-year-old boy named Danny.

Danny is actually easy to sum up: the favorite cars he has owned have been his Karmann Ghias, Maserati Biturbo sedan and his current Checker Marathon wagon. Danny has a degree from Harvard and served for many years as a telecommunications consultant. One might say that he’s smart, but just a tad eccentric.

Danny is a strong advocate of electric cars. He has bent my ear regarding this topic for years. Unfortunately, Danny just doesn’t “get it” when it comes to the reasons why electric cars haven’t yet caught on.

Every single time we discuss the acceptance of electric transport he questions why people don’t buy current electric-only cars. His rationale — since the average 40-mile range is fine for almost 90-percent of the average urban worker’s travel, everyone should own one.

My standard line is that people often purchase new vehicles to accommodate their perception of how they intend to use them, rather than the reality of how they indeed will. This explains why so many people bought SUVs and trucks despite using the cargo, hauling or 4WD capabilities.

The scary reality with the current electric cars is that if one needs to exceed 40 miles just once, then another car is needed. Unlike the move away from SUVs with an average consumer needing the capabilities less than once per year, a transition to electric-only is faced with an average user target that actually needs to exceed 40 miles in a day several times per month.

Danny’s follow-up is: when you need to do that, switch with your spouse or significant other. He doesn’t seem to understand that many people either aren’t married, don’t allow their spouses to drive their car (my wife can’t drive a stick), or have a spouse who also routinely drives beyond the range of a traditional electric vehicle.

So that leaves the option of owning two cars for one driver. Despite the low sub-$15,000 price point of many current electric car options, maintaining two cars can be quite expensive. Insurance is nasty and cars require maintenance even if they sit. Furthermore, for those in apartments and condos, additional parking can be a significant hurdle.

There is also no way around the fact that current electric cars are made to the standards of low-volume producers. Think Lotus in the 1950s, Lamborghini in the 1950s or De Lorean in the 1980s. This means inferior quality control, lack of available service and sub-standard safety. I’d hate to see what the pedal boxes and b-pillars look like after these little pieces of tin are subjected to front, offset and side impact testing.

I told Danny about my discussion with GM’s Bob Lutz about the future of plug-in hybrids that starts with the Chevy Volt in about 16 months. The Volt does the 40 miles on electric power, while providing the flexibility of running for another few-hundred miles on gas or E85. It also will meet federal crash standards and be built to the level of quality of a high-volume producer. (Chevy’s quality looks like Rolls Royce’s when compared to most boutique automakers.)

But Danny can’t see the justification for the $30,000-plus it will take to buy a Chevy Volt, when there are electric-only cars available for less than half. Chalk it up to heart over mind, because he still doesn’t see why anyone would view any of the aforementioned issues as non-starters for owning a pure electric vehicle.

This is case and point to the lack of traction current electric car manufacturers have in the contemporary market. Even though gas prices are high and interest is rising, the target is still made up of small vocal group whose members are quick to talk about how everyone should be driving electric cars by small volume producers, but slow to spend their own money following their own advice.

Maybe Danny will understand what it takes to succeed with an automotive product when the big automakers start selling millions of long-range plug-in electric/gas hybrids like the Volt, and the little oddities he loves so dearly (but still hasn’t purchased an example of) wind up as footnotes in automotive history books.

Dinner With GM’s Bob Lutz Exposes GM’s Bold and Innovative Strategic Shift

General Motors’ Vice Chairman Bob Lutz might have a reputation for pushing the production of performance cars, but high fuel costs and tough new CAFE regulations have him leading GM towards a leadership position in the hybrid revolution with 100-plus-mpg cars.

I’m not one to turn down a meal at a fine restaurant, especially when it’s on the dime of a corporation trying to spin its latest message or show new products. When I received an invitation to have dinner with General Motors Vice-Chairman Bob Lutz at Seattle’s famous Edgewater Hotel, I couldn’t confirm my attendance quickly enough.

If Lutz isn’t the most powerful and important person in the auto industry, then he’s a close second. Even though he is below GM CEO Rick Wagoner on the corporate org chart, Lutz has more influence over product direction. And because of his extensive experience in the automotive industry, journalists often look his way for answers before turning to Ghosn, Mulally or Zetsche.

And let’s face it – anyone who can take credit for green-lighting cars such as the BMW 2002 Turbo, Dodge Viper and upcoming Corvette ZR1 is someone I need to meet with over dinner.

Lutz has been in the Northwest selling the media on the future of GM. In a world that has been critical of GM’s financial woes and reliance on sales of trucks and SUVs going into an era of costly fuel, it hasn’t been an easy task. Passage of the 35-mpg CAFE standard in Congress has just made his job even harder.

Joining me for the dinner discussion are five other selected journalists. Three are from Cardomain.com, while the other two are environmental bloggers from the Northwest. Also in attendance are other GM heavyweights — who even without the presence of Lutz would make for a great evening of car-related banter. On my left is Dee Allen, the good-humored Staff Director Global Product & Brand Communications Integration. Across from me is technical/engineering guru Mark Labaere. Sitting beside me on the right is Dave Barthmuss, GM’s impressive Group Manager for the Western Region, Environment & Energy Communications. Dave is best known for being painted as a villain in his role overseeing the EV1 project in “Who Killed The Electric Car”, a film that I liken to “Tucker: A Man and His Dream” in ratio of facts to creative license for the sake of storyline.

The tall, commanding Lutz walks into the room. He overhears my comment to Dee Allen about declining the opportunity to drive a 1964 Lotus Elan to the meeting for fear that the few ominous clouds would require me to spend too much time fumbling with the Erector-Set top in the middle of a sudden downpour. He comes back with a story about the miserable tops on the pre-production Viper RT/10, as well as how one blew off at 175 mph during media testing on the Autobahn. You have to love any top executive who is as at home doing car small talk as when standing at a podium.

As we sit down, Lutz dives right into the major topic of his West Coast swing: GM’s commitment to making its Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid the standard of the world. Unlike Toyota’s Prius, the Volt will have the capacity to run on battery-only mode for around 40 miles. Considering the typical commuting pattern, Lutz believes that this can translate into real-world 100 to 200 mpg fuel consumption.

Driving the decision are federal regulations. In Lutz’s opinion (as well as mine and any other sane person in the world), combining 35-mpg CAFE standards with the added weight that comes with airbags, electronics and sheet-metal required to meet federal crash and safety requirements translates to a limited future of traditional gas and diesel-powered vehicles.

Like many journalists, I was outright skeptical when the Volt concept was first unveiled. It required lithium ion battery technology that didn’t exist at the moment. It also sounded more like somewhere between a marketing gimmick and a test of concept play (ala the EV1) rather than a technology on which many GM products would soon be based. The need to hit 35-mpg CAFE standards and fuel hitting near five dollars per gallon have changed opinions.

On the important topic of battery technology, Lutz immediately exhibits his indispensible value to GM. For those who forgot what he did after leaving Chrysler, Lutz was the CEO of Exide Battery. Yes folks, this is one of the few executives in the auto world who actually understands the production of batteries cradle-to-grave, as well as the business side of storing and delivering power – such as that it takes four minutes of man-hours to make a modern battery unit.

While Lutz believes that cellulosic ethanol provides a great potential for being a part of energy independence in the future, there’s no doubt that Chevy – and soon GM as a whole will be relying on the Volt’s next-gen hybrid technology. When I ask if and when the technology might make it into a Cadillac (to fight the Lexus hybrids and BMW 7-Series hydrogen cell vehicle), Lutz is quick not to say “no” or “yes”. Instead, like a good salesman, Lutz questions if I think a hybrid Cadillac should be in the works. I respond that as a former marketing guy, I’d want to see the segment research statistics.

“If you’re a marketing guy, you should know that you should make decisions with your gut, not statistics.” Lutz replies.

“With all due respect, even the best guts can lead them towards a bad decision” I say with a smile, eluding to a few of Lutz’s past plays that didn’t work out as planned – such as the recent Holden/Pontiac GTO disappointment.

Lutz comes back with a zinger — asking me how many baseball Hall of Famers have 1.000 batting averages…and then again asks what my gut tells me.

Obviously, I think it’s “a no-brainer”. Applying the Volt technology to an upscale, luxurious Cadillac (or Buick, for that matter) would have minimal cost, yet pay huge dividends in expanding into a segment where additional people would be willing to spend money for both the value and image of owning a green car. Being green is fashionable, and those with money are willing to spend more on fashion. From Lutz’s facial expression to my answer, I would guess that GM is already hard at work preparing to produce hybrid front-wheel-drive Caddies.

Lutz is a realist, though, and knows that the transition to electrical cars will not be without challenges. When I question about the trouble Chevy has traditionally shown servicing Corvettes (especially since the gizmo-laden 1984 model) in relation to the more high-tech Volt, Lutz admits that training and reducing the role of traditional dealer service for the non-standard technology are hurdles.

There is absolutely no doubt that the whole GM contingent strongly opposes the 35-mpg CAFE standard, which is the driving force to the Volt. (They cite the $6,000 of extra cost it will apply to cars – similar to the figures when the federal government has mandated safety and emissions requirements in the past.) GM and the other auto manufacturers have a history of predicting doom and gloom with each large federal and state regulatory step – and historically these regulations have actually helped, not hurt GM. The list of foreign manufacturers that left the market in 1968, 1975 and other years of tightening emissions and safety standards is long.

This increased 35-mpg standard has forced their hands to taking what looks like GM’s first leadership position in years. When the Volt comes out in 2010 — Lutz projects cars will start hitting dealerships in November, it will certainly have beaten all of the other next-gen hybrids to market. In other words — what is seen by everyone in the auto industry as a great pain might actually be a true gift to GM.

Lutz talks about his decades-long support of increasing the federal gas tax as the fairest way of reducing gas consumption. He feels this can funds the renewal of dilapidated interstates and state highways, (as well as possibly helping to cover better national health insurance, another large cost on GM’s shoulders). Yet while a gas tax is better policy, substituting a large tax for the 35-mpg CAFE legislation could have never forced the hands of the major automakers to produce discontinuous innovations.

The question comes up if the American automotive manufacturers are currently selling gas guzzlers, because that is what makes the most money. Lutz is quick to point out that GM has been selling what customers have wanted.

“All the marketing and advertising in the world won’t make someone buy something they don’t want. People have wanted big SUVs and trucks.”

With high gas prices this has all changed. Thanks to Congress, even if people want big rigs in America, no manufacturer will be able to sell them in great numbers without offsetting it with the sale of ultra-efficient cars. The GM crew is obviously not happy about this part!

Maybe Lutz should see the federal regulations like I do: a vote of confidence that when pushed into a corner, that the brilliant engineering minds working for the automotive manufacturers can create a solution.

And if what Lutz says is true, the future of GM and auto consumers worldwide is quite sunny. By as early as 2010, cars will be available that will deliver 200-mpg averages, will be serviceable at any local dealership, and carry the quality and style of GM brands. Even better, these front-wheel-drive cars will enable small-volume rear-wheel-drive performance cars like the Corvette and Sky to continue.

So for the first time in a long time – GM seems to be taking the lemons of high gas prices, slumping sales and stringent regulation and using very strong and bold leadership to make some pretty sweet lemonade for auto consumers around the globe.

California Dreaming — Ferrari California, That Is!

The Ferrari California is the company’s first front-engine V8-powered car…and one of the most visually-pleasing designs in years (photos courtesy of Ferrari S.p.A.)

You would be hard-pressed to find anyone here at The Four Wheel Drift organization who isn’t a self-proclaimed Ferrari fan. Consequently, the recently officially announced Ferrari California has us all giddy — like the first time we got to second base with pretty girls.

“First time” is actually a good theme for the upcoming Ferrari California. The model will be Ferrari’s first front-engine V8 — ever. It will also be the company’s first series production front-engine 2+2 convertible.

Despite being Tifosi (the name given to Ferrari fanatics), we’ve also been quite outspoken over the years concerning the lack of really pretty cars coming from the house that Enzo built. Sure, we have liked the 360/430 series, but we’ve gone on record calling the 612 “ugly”, the 599 “questionable”, and the Enzo “without soul”. We’ve even referenced the lack of passion and risk-taking in the lines of cars of the 550 and 456 GT series. A couple of us went so far as to discuss our opinions at great length with the project manager at Pininfarina responsible for producing Jim Glickenhaus’ wild and alluring Enzo-based P4/5 custom…

…So we’d like to think our words got back to Ferrari and the Pininfarina groups that worked on the California, because this car is gorgeous! It’s not perfect, like a 246GT Dino, but it has the attitude, sex appeal and presence of a summer blockbuster’s leading lady without the shock-value or polarizing weirdness of a runway model.

The last time Ferrari delivered a 2+2 convertible was the Mondia of the 1980s and early ‘90s. With all due respect to my friend who just bought a 1989 Mondial T convertible, these were not the prettiest cars. Furthermore, heavy bodies and bulky luxury equipment made the Mondials a little too slow and ungainly in corners to excite purists.

This time around, the Ferrari California will certainly deliver performance with its style and extra seats. The 4.3-liter V8 utilizing direct injection will likely deliver 460 horsepower and 369 lb-ft of torque. This will probably put the 0-60 time at 3.6 seconds – over twice as fast as the Mondial convertibles with the 3.0-liter quattrovalve V8. Helping acceleration will be an all-new dual-clutch paddle-shift gearbox, which was developed largely by reverse-engineering the hardware and software of the industry-leading Audi unit.

Acceleration is helped by a weight-saving all-aluminum body. The California also utilizes an automatic folding hardtop — a Pininfarina specialty. Ferrari has yet to release to us the photos of the car with the top up, but we can already see the tight lines with the top down. Speaking of tight, the rear seats will be best used for gym bags and briefcases. And to ensure that no Mondial-esque complaints are made about fat-guy-on-rollerskates-like handling, the new suspension and front-midship placement of the V8 engine will pay dividends in apex carving duties.

Original leaks had this pegged as an entry-level Ferrari called Dino. Using the California name was a smarter move, evoking the original 250 GT California Spyder, which first appeared in 1957. California Spyders were built by Scaglietti, initially on the long-wheelbase 250 GT platform using the standard three-liter V12 developing 240 hp. (Later cars switched to the shorter wheelbase chassis and some were fitted with higher-power engines.) Thanks to a recent $10M-plus auction sale for one example, the 250 GT California Spyder is now the most valuable car model in the world, and hence on of the most coveted classics on the planet.

Ferrari is choosing to cash-in on the model name’s always-strong-but-still-rising stock. Unlike the Ford GT, Ford Mustang, Dodge Challenger, or Chevy Camaro, which were little more than old looks on modern technology, the new Ferrari California uses only subtle cues to remind of its ancestor. It is retro in spirit, but not in design or lines, an obvious key to success in the supercar market. The most important homage to the great 250 GT California is that this new Ferrari will be just like its dual-purpose grandfather: just as capable of being driven during the week to work as on the track during weekends.

Alas, we probably won’t be able to afford one, since it likely will be priced similarly to the current 430. The current 430 will get a modest price increase, holding true to initial reports that the California will indeed be the “entry-level Ferrari”.

Hopefully we’ll be able to steal a ride when one comes stateside. And we promise that there will be no “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”-like calamities when we take out the new Ferrari California for a first date.

Proposing alphanumeric model name rules for manufacturers

I’m going to get right to the point here: I can’t stand modern alphanumeric model names. They are more confusing than what you hear eavesdropping on a conversation between two quantum physicists speaking in pig-latin.

Alphanumeric model designations are as old as dirt…or John McCain, for that matter. Actually, they’re older — think 1922 Citroen 5CV or the famous Alfa Romeo 8C 2300. Back in the old days, naming a car model after a combination of number of cylinders, displacement and/or horsepower was standard practice.

For those like me who grew up before the era of Japanese and European automobile dominance, alphanumeric names were the exception, not the rule. Model names showed the creative prowess of domestic product marketing. My family had relationships with LeSabre, LeBaron, Special, New Yorker, LTD, and the neighbors had Corvette, Duster, and even a Beetle and Rabbit.

My parents still live in the same house, but now the carport is home to a Lexus ES300 and BWM 335ic. One neighbor put his ’63 Corvette in storage, and instead drives his Mercedes Lexus LS430.

As an automotive guy holding a Bachelor’s Business Marketing (who whooped-ass in every competition against MBA candidates taking the same courses from the same professors), I certainly understand the perceived benefits of alphanumeric designations.

Among the upsides:

It prevents model identity from eclipsing brand identity

Enables dealers to have a better chance at upselling to more expensive cars and more options due to product benefit confusion.

Provides upsell potential due to envy of higher numbers that come with a more expensive car in the lineup.

Makes a model year-oriented designation publically obsolete (ES 300 vs. ES 330 vs. ES 350) much quicker, causing consumers to either lease or buy new cars on a truncated schedule to keep a new-appearing model.

Minimizes problems and demarketing costs associated with curing negative name recognition with failed models, such as with Pinto, Pacer, and Aztek.

When looking at the benefits, one immediately understands why this is now common practice among the mass-production luxury car brands.

But Alphanumerics have huge downsides:

Lack of convention translates to lack of model recognition and identity.

It becomes very hard to differentiate the intersections between product lines, products and options.

Most importantly – AN designations often lead to customers linking a model with the wrong manufacturer.

The market has a right to be confused. In some cases, the letters represent the product line, while the numbers indicate a displacement or other option category. This is true for Mercedes, which offers the S, SL, C, E, CL, CLK, GL, SLK, ML, as well as other product lines with a bunch of engine options, which gets you something like a S550 or S430. Lexus (LS, LX, GL, GS, GX, IS) and Infiniti (Q, G, M, QX) follow Mercedes lead with first the letters, then the engine displacement.

Acura once relied on AN model names — flipping the Mercedes/Lexus/Infinity convention by listing the engine size then the model line, as in 3.2TL. Now, however, they also just offer the RL (which used to be the 3.5RL), MDX, RDX, TSX.

BMW uses a different methodology. Its product lines are numeric or alphanumeric – 7, 6, 5, 3, 1, Z4, X3, X5, and M (in 3,5 and 7 guises, as well as “M Roadster” and “M Coupe” forms of the Z4s). BMW used to also attach a number indicating the total displacement of the car’s engine and a letter for the body configuration, so a 740iL was a 7-series sedan with four-liter fuel injected V8 and a long wheelbase. Now the numbers no longer always identify the displacement, as the 3.0L sixes in the 328 and 335 prove. (For the record, the 335 has the twin-turbo engine, while the 328 has the normally aspirated engine.)

Audi uses yet another letter-number methodology. They have the 8, 6, 5, 4, and now 3 series lines. Most can be had in A (standard) or S (sport). One can have a four-cylinder engine, six-cylinder or eight-cylinder in the 4 and 6 lines. Oh, then there’s the Q7 and R8…which has a V8 now, but will have a V10 next year.

Since seemingly all the foreign luxury brands went away from real names, so are Caddy (DTS, STS, CTS) and Lincoln (MKZ, MKX). If I were an executive for Ford, the brain surgeons who decided to rename the Zephyr to MKZ just a year after the product launch would all be blackballed from holding any marketing or product management positions anywhere. In fact, I’d ensure the only things out of their cornholes was “Welcome to M-C-D’s, would you like fries with that?”

The FTC needs to mandate some type of naming convention, so car shopping (or in my case – helping people car shop) is less like trying to pick up a girl in a bar who doesn’t speak English.

So this is what I suggest: When using alphanumeric model designations, the letter must identify a series (product line) and the number following it must either represent the number of cylinders or engine displacement. Displacement can represent the total, or in traditional Ferrari-style, of a single cylinder. A letter can follow either the number or initial letter to designate a body style.

While we’re at it, companies should be banned from using an “I” to indicate fuel injection anywhere in the model name. BMW – when was the last time someone thought your cars might be equipped with a carburetor?

I’m not a guy who likes to yearn for “the good old days”, because as Billy Joel once said “the good old days weren’t always good and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems”. My kingdom, however, for a model line of clever names like Studebaker’s President, Dictator and Commander.

Hyundai’s Genesis marks the beginning of Korean styling excellence…and end of American pony car reign

While journalists have been throwing praise at Chevy for the 2009 Camaro, Cadillac for the upcoming CTS Coupe, and Dodge for the now-arriving Challenger, the sweetest looking two-door to hit the “coming soon” pages is actually from Hyundai. The Genesis coupe is simply a work of art.

GM, Ford and Chrysler: beware! The 2010 Genesis (due out in 2009) is not destined to be another rice rocket in the mold of the Acura Integra. Hyundai has instead designed it to be an American-like pony car to do battle against the Mustang. Don’t laugh – when it hits dealerships, the rear-wheel-drive Genesis will be available with either a turbo 2.0-liter 212hp four or a high-output 306-hp six-cylinder engine. And no doubt that the V8 Hyundai has in development will be there sooner than you think!

Hyundai has delivered nicely styled cars in the past. Indeed the current Hyundai Tiburon coupe obviously stole lines from the Ferrari 550 Maranello. Unfortunately, the front-wheel-drive Tiburon (as well as other cars from the Korean automaker) has always been a let down in the driving department. The new Genesis, however, has earned praise from the few journalists who have had the chance to do preview drives. Rumors are that power, handling, braking, and refinement are all top-notch for the general price and segment.

What seems most important is that from a style perspective, the Genesis doesn’t seem to steal from any other car. It is fresh and devoid of all the foolish, tacky add-ons all too familiar on American so-called performance cars. There are no non-functional fake air intakes, nor are there creases or edges that are there just to maintain a corporate look or theme. In fact, the Genesis shows no evidence that the designers were out to make a unique-appearing Hyundai, rather one that would point to the future, not the past.

So as GM goes to 1969 for the design of its 2009 Camaro, Dodge’s Challenger steals entirely from its 1970 version, and Ford’s Mustang soldiers on with a pastiche of 1965, 1967 and 1969 Fastback ‘Stang cues, the Hyundai Genesis proves that being new can be done without looking old. Furthermore, the Genesis will remain fresh for years to come.

With better pricing and all the power of American pony cars, it’s possible that the Genesis’ show and go will translate to stealing sales not only from Mustang, Challenger and Camaro, but also from Infiniti G, Acura TL, Pontiac G8, Subaru WRX, Mitsubishi Evo, and Cadillac CTS. Who knows, maybe even a few Bimmer or Audi drivers will wonder why they’ve spent $10K-$20K more than they had to?

Pontiac, Holden, the return of the El Camino… and why Mullets won’t save GM

The Holden Ute will come to the USA as a Pontiac. It probably won’t be called El Camino, which was the infamous trucklet sold by Chevy during the muscle car era. The Ute will get left-hand-drive, a V8 and Pontiac’s front grill treatment.

Mullet-heads rejoice – the Chevy El Camino is making its triumphant return. Alas, it will be sold as a Pontiac and not called the El Camino. Heck, it won’t even be American, rather another Australian vehicle – a Holden Ute, with left-hand drive and rebadged a Pontiac.

Pluck me bald and call me Breezy, but I just don’t see why bringing back the El Camino is a real priority for GM. I’ve mentioned over and over again that continued focus on niche vehicles is simply killing the Big Three.

We all know that Bob Lutz has an addiction to bringing captive imports over. The problem is that none of them have really been successful. From both a unit sales and profit perspective, the GTO was a disaster. And there’s a long track record of captive imports failing – need I mention Opel or the Merkur. (Yes, I know the XR4ti was a fun car. With only 42,183 sales in 1985-1989, however, it wasn’t the sales and profit success for which Ford had hoped.)

Pontiac’s slice of the overall automotive market pie right now is the caloric equivalent of something on the “Biggest Loser” diet. One might wonder why the company would spend money federalizing a vehicle that is at best a small niche player. This is a company that needs a solid double or triple to stay relevant, not a third-strike passed-ball run to first.

To put some perspective to the project – even in its heyday, the El Camino was never a huge seller. In the days when conventional wisdom placed model survival at 100,000 units, the El Camino never eclipsed 70,000. It was more at home in the 40,000 range. And yes, this includes its GMC Sprint platform-mate.

The El Camino had its best sales in the days before small and midsize trucks. These days, people who want an image truck incapable of hauling huge loads or towing anything larger than a SeaDoo buy a Toyota Tacoma, or one of the other dozens of mid-sizers. This doesn’t even include white-collar “trucks” like the car-based Honda Ridgeline or Subaru Baja.

With higher CAFE standards on the horizon and miserable sales of current Pontiac offerings, it’s a head scratcher concerning GM’s decision to make the brand the home to all the small-market long shots. The GTO, upcoming V8/rear-wheel-drive G8 and El Camino will not be kind to Pontiac’s CAFE ratings (or profitability). Pontiac is also home to some other also-runs – although even I’ll admit that the current portfolio is extremely impressive, but only when compared to the Grand Am, Grand Prix, Sunfire, Bonneville and other garbage that littered dealerships ten years ago.

Certainly there isn’t a complete lack of rationale for the El Camino coming in as a Pontiac. This has been GM’s “performance division” for decades, even if it hasn’t had a top-tier performance car of its own to top other GM divisions since the tripower-equipped 389-ci GTO of 1964. Since then, performance enthusiasts were better off shopping in Chevy dealerships.

The worst part of the Holden Ute-to-Pontiac conversion is that the car will come out looking less like a cool GM performance car, and more like the ugly angled-nose Dodge Rampage car/truck hybrid of the 1980s. How are enthusiasts supposed to get excited over a vehicle that seems to exhibit more visible DNA from a Subaru Brat than from the Chevy El Camino.

And please don’t use the argument that “they already have it, so it’s cheap to market here”. This simply isn’t true. Let’s not forget that GM can’t do ANYTHING cheaply, as the billion-dollar cost to shut down Oldsmobile exhibited. Converting the Holden Ute to left-hand-drive and meeting all safety standards is damn expensive, both in terms of total cost and percentage of projected sales revenues. Furthermore, Pontiac could sign a Major League Baseball MVP to a long-term contract to play for the corporate softball team for less than the cost of marketing and advertising.

I might have said this over a thousand times, but it’s worth repeating…”Big Three automakers have to stop making cars to feed the gray-haired executives’ nostalgia.” The El Camino’s days have long passed, and in the era of high-output low-displacement import tuners, the Elkie is no more than a punch line to the standard white trash joke.

Motorola’s MOTOROKR Hands-Free Unit Rocks… And How to Win One Here.

More and more regions have already outlawed driving while talking on a cell phone without a hands-free kit. It is no surprise that the hands-free equipment market is booming with new and better options.

Despite what politicians say, there are no statistics to show that hands-free kits make driving any safer. Basically, a distracted driver is a distracted driver. Since most hands-free devices are headsets, often you’ll find drivers untangling cords, plugging things in, dialing and then talking, whereas before the hands-free requirement, the user was simply dialing and talking.

No matter what I or anyone else says, the laws are the laws, so the next issue becomes how to best comply.

Motorola sent “Sam Barer’s Four Wheel Drift” two units of its new T505 MOTOROKR Bluetooth-enabled speakerphone – one to test, and one to give away to our readers…but we’ll get into how to win this a little later.

I spent a good portion of my early life working in telecommunications, so I was an early adopter of both cell phone and hands-free technology. Generally speaking, most hands-free kits diminished the sound quality (both sending and receiving) from the base levels of the handset.

Even on my current Palm Centro, trying to utilize the wired earpiece results in inaudible conversations for both parties.

Speakerphone devices have traditionally been a no-no in my life. A convertible junkie, the only thing worse than trying to carry on a conversation on a cell phone in a drop-top is to attempt to do so on a speakerphone.

So when I started testing Motorola’s MOTOROKR speakerphone, my expectations were lower than a D student during college admissions season.

The MOTOROKR is a small box (about half the size of a radar detector) that when plugged into the lighter/power outlet enables one to listen to conversations via an FM station on the car’s stereo (just like Mr. Microphone from days gone by.) A microphone in the box picks-up the user’s voice. Through the wonders of modern Bluetooth technology, the user’s cell phone can stay in a pocket or purse.

Installation is a breeze. Plug it into the power and push the FM transmitter button to select a station (and then tune your stereo to the same station.) Unfortunately, here are where my only gripes come about the whole experience. First, the power cable is too short to enable the box to be clipped anywhere higher than the center console. (The MOTOROKR has an on-board battery, but the cord still means that you’ll have to take it off the sun visor and place it near the console to recharge.) Second, the power and FM transmitter selection buttons are on the rear of the unit (with the other two phone function buttons on the front) so finding them while driving is somewhat clunky. Finally, it can be very tough to get a station with no interference in a busy media market. This obviously isn’t Motorola’s fault, but at some point, companies using FM transmitters will find a better way of overcoming ghosting from other stations.

The first test was in the 2006 Toyota Avalon. If a hands-free kit can’t make it in the Avalon’s Lexus-level of quiet, it can’t make it anywhere. With the MOTOROKR mounted at knee level, my voice still was clear.

Sample of MOTOROKR in a 2006 Toyota Avalon

Don’t think that I’d call it a day after one test in a Toyota. No sir, out of the cushy, quiet Avalon and into the nasty world of fiberglass (actually, “composites” is more accurate) in the form of a 2002 Corvette Convertible. The C5 Corvette Convertibles are instant death to cell phone technology. Top up, the noise from reverberating plastics and rumbling run-flat tires is deafening. Top down, even with an earpiece wedged in your ear canal at maximum volume you can’t hear anything…plus the person on the other end hears little more than wind and diesel truck engines.

At 60 mph with the top down on Interstate 5, the MOTOROKR worked like a champ. Sitting in the cup holder, it actually picked up my voice over the ambient noise. Furthermore, since it broadcasts the other party’s voice over the stereo, I was able to turn up the volume to the point where hearing the conversation was easy – even for my damaged ears.

Sample of MOTOROKR in a 2002 Corvette Convertible — top down on city steets
Sample of MOTOROKR in a 2002 Corvette Convertible — TOP DOWN AT 60 MPH!

For just under $100, the MOTOROKR…well, it rocks — like Motorhead in a world that’s all too full of Brittany Spears-level pretenders. It actually makes conversations easier to hear for all involved. It definitely doesn’t make driving any safer — indeed, I nearly tore off the Corvette’s side mirror when I grazed a trash can parked too far into the street while trying to power-on the MOTOROKR…and I’ve never come close to hitting anything during a non-hands-free conversation in the past.

But if the law says you have to be hands-free…the MOTOROKR is a fabulous way to go.

So now – how do you win one?

I’m pleased to announce The Four Wheel Drift’s Best Car Jokes Contest. Simply send in your best original car or car-related joke to fwd@apexstrategy.com (along with a way to contact you.) On July 1st, 2008, to commemorate Washington State’s hands-free law going into effect, a hand-chosen panel of “experts” will pick the best joke and award the author a new Motorola MOTORKR T505.

Jokes should be new and original – the staff here has heard all the classics already. All entries will be posted in the Best Car Jokes column, when we’ll award the Motorola MOTOROKR to the winner.

Why the SRT8 is no hemi-powered Challenger

The automotive world is seemingly in a full-body tizzy over the return of the Dodge Challenger. Hitting dealerships now, the SRT8 version has been the darling of the automotive press for months.

I’ve gone on record plenty of times about Dodge’s horrible belated timing — just like the 1970 Challenger on which the lines are almost completely based. And though I haven’t yet had the opportunity to slam the Challenger SRT8’s sickening 4000-plus pound curb weight, I’ll simply say that it’s disgusting and move on to a more important topic.

Dodge says its Challenger is equipped with the “6.1 liter SRT Hemi® V8 Engine.” Hear this loud and clear: no SRT8 Hemi Dodge or Chrysler is a hemi. With full credit to former Vice Presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen, I say: “I knew Mopar’s Hemi, and you, Mr. SRT8, are no hemi.”

In an effort to make it crystal clear, ladies and gentlemen, since 2002 there has been a difference between “Hemi” (the marketing brand name) and “hemi” (the technology from which the brand got its name.)

The word “hemi” (lower case) is short for hemispherical combustion chambers. Put into terms the average runway model might understand, a cylinder fitted with a head utilizing a chamber formed like a hemisphere makes the quickest, largest, and most efficient boom. Placing valves on opposing sides of a central spark plug provides maximum ability to introduce air/fuel, ignite it and remove resulting exhaust and heat. This means more power, a happier driver, and busy radar-wielding police officers.

Chrysler Corp wasn’t even close to the first producer of an engine with hemispherical combustion chambers. The famous Hemi engines of the 1960s and early 1970s weren’t even Chrysler’s first hemi engines in name or technology.

So let’s start the history lesson: Way back in 1902, the Welch brothers of Pontiac, MI began building cars with an overhead cam engine featuring hemispherical combustion chambers. By the time General Motors bought out Welch (then known as Welch-Detroit) in 1911, the cars had yet to go into production. Tragically, GM decided to do nothing with the engine technology.

Charles Knight built his 1904 Silent Knight prototypes, which used a sleeve-valve engine with hemispherical heads. Like Welch, Knight never went into series production, but unlike GM, Daimler purchased the technology and used in its later products.

Starting in 1908, Franklin started using a hemispherical design on its air-cooled production engines, making it the first true production hemi. A well-known manufacturer of cutting-edge luxury cars since 1902, Franklin made hemi-powered cars available to its well-heeled customers, which included Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart.

In 1912 Peugeot’s factory racer, featuring a three-liter hemi-headed mill, dominated European events. Other companies would soon develop their own competing hemis. The most notable company was Alfa Romeo, whose chief designer, Vittorio Jano, created four, six and eight cylinder dual-overhead-cam hemis (some were even supercharged) for race and road cars starting in 1925.

Possibly the most unorthodox early hemi came from BMW’s 1937 328 sports car. Engineers utilized vertical pushrods and rockers for intake valves, but to actuate the exhaust valves located on the opposite side of the head, vertical pushrods and rockers pushed a second set of horizontally placed rods and rockers. Although complex, it worked surprisingly well, plus the dual rocker boxes made the inline overhead valve six look like a dual-overhead-cam unit.

Three years after Jaguar’s XK DOHC six became the first post-war hemi, Chrysler finally got into the game with 331 cubic inch FirePower-equipped 1951 New Yorkers and Imperials. De Soto’s 276-ci FireDome appeared in 1952 and Dodge’s 241 ci Red Ram V-8 came in 1953. Mopar “baby hemis” could also be found in Cunningham sports cars and Facel Vega grand tourers.

The heavy, complex baby hemi engines ate valve springs for lunch and camshafts for dinner. In 1957, Chrysler decided to end production of the engine with the 310-hp 325-ci Dodges and 345-hp 345-ci De Sotos. Chrysler held out through 1958 with the 380-hp 392-ci hemi in the 300D.

Then came the 426-ci Hemi. Debuting in 1964 factory-supported racers, the engine redefined the reaches of performance in NASCAR and drag racing. Chrysler begrudgingly made the 425-hp street Hemi available in 1966 to meet homologation rules. (Homologation is the fancy word used to describe the requirement in a production-based racing series that anything offered on a race car is also sold in dealerships to non racing clients.)

Mopars powered by the so-called 426 “Elephant motor” became legendary purely on brain-bruising performance. Simple hot-rodding easily unleashed over 750 hp. Due to being as fuel efficient as a 747, environmentally friendly as Clean Air legislation penned in Houston, maintenance-free as a runway model, and easy to insure as a sky-diving octogenarian, it was killed off after 1971.

With original Hemi cars bringing over six figures at auction and a contemporary power war raging, DaimlerChrysler decided the time was right in 2002 to bring back the Hemi in modern Dodge, Chrysler (and gulp) Jeep vehicles. Consumers responded by opening up their checkbooks and lines of credit.

The ads might have asked “that thing got a Hemi?”, but in reality, none of the Dodge and Chrysler engines based on the modern 345-ci “Hemi” can be considered a “hemi”. Plain and simple, none of these engines, base and SRT8 Hemi offerings included, actually have hemispherical combustion chambers! Just because they have valves opposing central spark plugs does not there is a hemispherical combustion chamber formed inside.

It is easy to get lost in the technology and terminology. The bottom line is that the SRT8 delivers 425 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque, which absolutely is better than the quoted statistics for the 426 when normalized for the difference between pre-1972 gross and ’72-on net SAE ratings. The SRT8 Hemi is a fabulous engine, and the use of Hemi as a brand name was a stroke of product marketing genius, period.

When equipped with this glorious 6.1 lump, the 2008 Challenger weighs more than a 1970 Hemi Challenger. It also isn’t offered with a Pistol Grip four-speed.

The SRT8 Challenger might look like a Hemi Challenger…

…but really it’s just a semi-Hemi.

Picking the Best Example From Each Automaker

Here’s an interesting exercise: imagine a genie offered you the opportunity to pick a single example from each current automotive manufacturer. If the goal was to pick the model which best represented every company’s high watermark (weighing facts like sales, performance, quality, marketing value compared to contemporaries instead of relying on nostalgia), what would you take?

Figure the genie also promises to provide ample warehouse space, but no mechanics or extra money to maintain your selections. You can pick new, used or classic, and all examples will be in perfect condition. Selections must be production vehicles, not concepts. Finally, no hot rods or customs, which means a Model A would not be a high-boy and a ‘49 Merc would come without a chop.

What this exercise accomplishes is to identify if automakers are indeed producing their best work now or sometime in the past.

Here are my selections with reasons:

Acura – 2004 NSX: Without a doubt, the NSX is the most indestructible supercar ever produced. While the cabin is a wee tight for a person of my 6’4” height, the screaming V6, sublime gearbox and communicative steering more than offset the need to use a shoehorn for getting in.

Aston Martin – 2008 DB9: Quite frankly, just about every Aston Martin has been a fantastic GT. Cars after the DB4GT, however, were too heavy to be competitive against its peers in anything except for luxury and beauty. The DB9, however, delivers looks and V12 performance of the highest levels…and most importantly, doesn’t give the driver the feeling of a car that will be out of its element when the road starts to turn sharply.

Audi – 2008 R8: After my family owned an early 5000S, I’d be reluctant to ever own another Audi. I was actually a fan of the first Quattro Coupes, as well as the not-for-USA initial RS6. In recent years I’ve taken more of a liking to the S4 I suppose, though, that the marque’s best work of all time is the newest R8. It might hit the market with a diesel engine in a year or two, making it the best performing oil burner ever. I’m still warming to the R8’s looks (I’ll never warm to its six-figure price), but there’s little doubt the car is a winner.

Bentley – 1929 Speed Six Le Mans: Please don’t get me wrong – I absolutely love the current Continental GT, but the Speed Six with Le Mans touring bodies were among the most macho, muscular, fast, brutish sporting machines of their day. Any 1929 car that can hold its own in modern freeway traffic is great in my book. Sure there’s the heavy steering, inadequate brakes and outboard gear lever requiring a shot of human growth hormone to operate, but that’s all a part of the charm.

BMW — 2008 750Li: I know, all the M-series fanatics are screaming “what are you smoking???” As much as I love M3 and M5 cars, as well as the new 335i convertible, I still consider the V8-powered long-wheelbase 7-Series sedan the best road-trip car on the planet. Comfort, luxury, power, handling, space…like JC Penny’s “it’s all inside.”

Buick — 1953 Skylark: I’m a Buick guy. I was brought home from the hospital in a Buick Special convertible. My first car in high school was my mom’s LeSabre. The Buick brand offers absolutely nothing for car people, unless, of course, you live in China, where there are some sexy sedans. Some might say an ’87 GNX (lousy car aside from straight-line quarter-mile acceleration), or ’63 Riviera (no convertible option), but I love the high-end look and sleek drop-top lines of the original ’53 Skylark.

Cadillac – 1933 V16 All-Weather Phaeton: Since the likes of Packard and Duesenberg aren’t available to my list, Caddy provides the perfect opportunity to show that the Classic Era produced unmatched luxury. In the 1930s, Cadillac was “The Standard of the World”, something that even the interesting new CTS cannot say without making BMW laugh. When Caddy released the 452-cubic inch V16, however, it was unmatched. Call it restrained opulence, if there ever was such a thing. The engine wasn’t much to look at, with its very clean valve covers and ancillaries. The mill, however, was a torque monster capable of pulling the heaviest of bodies to highway speeds quickly. My personal favorite is the Fleetwood-bodied All-Weather Phaeton, which illustrates what glamorous travel was like in the day.
Even in the 1950 and 1960s, Cadillac never again achieved the level of quality, luxury and image as in 1933.

Chevrolet – 2009 Corvette ZR1: It’s simple to pick a Corvette, with this car being the brand’s halo, but there might be some debate about which one. Don’t tell me about ’67 L88s or ’69 ZL1s, because the 2009 ZR1 will absolutely destroy these cars at three-quarters throttle…all which delivering better fuel economy, comfort, and most of all, reliability. The ZL1 and L88 427 cubic-inch V8s couldn’t idle below 1800 rpms. On the other hand, the LS9-equipped ZR1 is capable of being a great daily driver, as well as weekend racer. And yes, I know it actually isn’t “out yet”, but cars will be ready soon.

Chrysler – 1957 300C Convertible: Some of Chrysler’s best work came in the Classic Era, when it produced its Imperial line to compete against Packard, Cadillac and others. Since the Imperial was coachbuilt, though, its styling was beautiful, but not unique. To get traffic-stopping looks, world-beating performance and jealousy-inducing elegance all in one package, only the 1957 300C convertible will do. Beautiful and wild Virgil Exner styling and “Baby Hemi” power (including the optional hi-po 10:1 compression 390-hp version) made the 1957 Chrysler 300C the ultimate banker’s hot rod. The nearly identical 300D might be rarer (191 convertibles compared to the 484 300C drop-tops), but the changes included tail light styling that wasn’t as clean, and a hi-po option that switched to using a fuel injection system that was possibly the most troublesome FI unit ever produced.

Dodge – 2008 Viper SRT-10 Coupe: More horsepower than any Hemi, plus great handling. It’s the best, meanest, coolest Dodge ever.

Ferrari – Enzo Ferrari: With so many amazing sports cars in the company’s history, it’s tough to identify the best. What the early cars lack in modern performance capabilities, they make up with sex appeal. Some of the current offerings don’t deliver the connection between driver and car. I drove the 599GTB Fiorano and it’s 3.56 0-60 mph run was less exhilarating than a 4.6 second run in my old ’69 Corvette. Luckily, the Enzo supercar delivers the best performance of any Ferrari in history, while maintaining a good “seat-of-the-pants” feel. When my brother was treated to a 0-120-0 test in an Enzo, all he could say was “oh my god!” The Enzo isn’t the prettiest creation from Maranello, but it is certainly an incredible statement of function over form.

Ford – 1912 Model T: The original GT40 was Ford’s best sports car on the international stage, but most of the credit goes to English Lola. Then the GT tribute car came out a few years ago. Anyone familiar with my work knows I’m not a retro type of guy, but the Ford GT40 was such a timeless design, that simply by increasing the size, making subtle changes and changing everything underneath, the GT wound up a totally modern car by all standards. Performance in the Ford GT is unmatched by any Ford of the past, quality is high, comfort is exceptional, and fine details (such as machined toggle switches) show what the Blue Oval can do when it cares. So why do I pick the Model T as Ford’s high watermark? Simple, it was the most dominant Ford ever in terms of market share due to the vehicle’s quality, design, price, and performance. All too often people discount the level of competition in the marketplace in this era. There were far more automakers in the Model T era than in 2008!

GMC – 2008 Sierra 1500: It’s not sexy, but it’s GMC’s best all-purpose workhorse yet.

Honda – S2000: I’ll actually state that I was really torn between the S2000 and the Odyssey. Stop laughing – if you can find a better family hauler than the newest Odyssey minivan in the history of the universe, I’ll eat my hat. While the Odyssey delivers space, comfort, great pep and handling, and good economy, the S2000 simply ups the ante by offering a screaming fun vehicle. Think Lotus with Honda reliability. There’s simply nothing like life at 8500 rpms.

HUMMER – H1: The H2 and H3 are poorly-built image vehicles for people who think that adding plastic to standard GM SUV platforms somehow makes them cool or bad. On the other hand, the H1 was a highly capable, no excuses go-anywhere with room for its width truck. If the end of the world comes, a good diesel H1 isn’t a bad choice in which to navigate the carnage.

Hyundai — Tiburon: Ferrari 550-inspired lines in a cheap GT car. Nothing from Hyundai is great, but the Tiburon is its best creation to date. The company will release a V8-powered large sedan to compete against the Avalon and entry-level luxury cars next year, so that vehicle will certainly displace the Tiburon on this list…but then there’s also a new V8 RWD Tiburon to compete against Mustang on the horizon, as well.

Infiniti — M45: A great mid-size sedan with ample power, handling, luxury, and sweet looks. It’s also a great bargain compared to its contemporaries. I just wish it was larger, because it’s just a tad too small for a tall adult driver to haul three other people in comfort.

Jaguar – 2008 Jaguar XJ Super V8: Combining the long-wheelbase XJ platform, Vanden Plas luxury and the supercharged 4.2-liter 400-hp V8 is a recipe for a great touring vehicle. The fact that it also outhandles and out accelerates an XKSS (and its lesser XK120/140/150 siblings, as well as E-Types of six and twelve cylinders) is simply gravy. Despite continued crappy quality, the newest Jags are better than those of the past with livable glitches and much improved ergonomics. If only someone would train the dealer networks, because Jaguar dealerships remain among the least competent at providing service.

Jeep — 2008 Grand Cherokee: Jeeps might be “Trail Rated”, but they rate poorly on quality, economy, interior size and overall ergonomics. If I was forced to take a Jeep, it would be the Grand Cherokee. In offroad tests, I’ve found the Grand Cherokee to be far more capable in most situations than the Wrangler, due to being much less bouncy. Plus the Wrangler’s driving position is like a medieval torture device.

Kia – 2008 Sedona: Gee Mom, do I have to drive a Kia? I suppose the Sedona is a minivan I could beat the crap out of without feeling bad.

Lamborghini – 2008 Murcielago LP640 Convertible: Trust me, I really, really, really want to say Miura. I’ve driven a 100-pt Concorso Italiano winning ’67 Miura, and it was a full-body experience. In my opinion, no other car in history has ever looked so impressive and turned so many heads when new, as well as when the years went by. Aside from looks, the 2008 Murcielago Convertible is a better car. It goes faster, has more secure handling, sounds just as good, is more comfortable to drive (although few actually realize the Miura actually has a very comfortable seat and ample legroom for the passenger!) Unlike the Miura, the new Raging Bulls are extremely reliable, courtesy of the Audi ownership.

Land Rover – 2008 Range Rover: If I ever need to get to the top of the mountain, the Range Rover is the vehicle in which I want to do it. I do have my reservations about the pick, though, as a good 1967-ish Land Rover is a heck of lot less likely to suffer a trip-ending electronic problem or mechanical break down. If you understand SU carburetors and the ultra-simple Lucas electrical system, nothing short of a lack of fuel can stop an old LR. I suppose, though, that the new Range Rover’s power, performance, braking, stability control, etc.. offset the fact that they are among the least reliable vehicles made during the last decade.

Lexus – 2008 LS 600h: Hybrids don’t really do it for me, but in the case of the Lexus LS series, the 600h offers more performance and better fuel economy than the standard gas-only 460. Either one is the best car ever offered by Toyota’s luxury brand. Even sports car enthusiasts need a car that they can hop into from time to time to go down the road without effort or noise. The LS 600h is a high-end living room on wheels.

Lincoln – 1964 Continental Convertible: Lincoln has been a miserable brand for the better part of the last three decades. Back in the 1960s, Lincoln was still considered one of the marques in the world, and one of the reasons was the Continental Convertible. With its suicide door configuration and opulent seating for five (or six in a pinch,) the ’64 offered the best combination of styling, wheelbase, engine power, and chassis improvements. Those questioning why I would pick a ’64 over a MKII from ’57, there are two simple reasons: 1) It was never offered in a convertible (despite plans to do so and a single prototype) and 2)it technically wasn’t a “Lincoln”, rather a “Continental” brand with MKII as the model.

Lotus – 2008 Elise: All the weight-saving no-frills formula of the Elite, Elan and Europa with construction enabling the cars to stay together for more than a year. It is amazing to look at the horrible build quality on a S1 Elan and realize people paid nearly the cost of an E-Type to buy one. The Elise is the perfect third car – wonderful on the track, winding back country roads and anywhere one can toss it around…but miserable as a car you have to drive every day.

Maserati – 2008 Quattroporte: We’re talking about the only Maser that has ever really had mainstream appeal. While the 3500, Mistral, Ghibli, and Bora were gorgeous vehicles, they were painfully under-developed. The Quattroporte actually has shown to be very reliable in daily use, which is fantastic, given that the car is one of the great performance tourers offered today.

Maybach – 2008 62: For a base price of around $385,000, you get a limo-sized vehicle that goes 0-60 mph faster than many GTs, plus offers a more comfortable place in which to hang out than most living rooms. The Maybach line isn’t selling nearly as well as Mercedes had hoped, but at least it has replaced Rolls-Royce as the best choice for old-school rich people who can afford to wipe their tushies with $100 bills.

Mazda – 1995 RX7: What a beautiful car! Great performance and handling (courtesy of springs so stiff that a three minute ride adequately mixes a standard can of paint.) The original Wankel-powered Cosmo was a luxury GT ground-breaker, the Mazdaspeed3 is a great little pocket-rocket, and the Miata continues to define roadsters, but the RX7 still stands as the company’s best work. If only apex seals didn’t wear so quickly!

Mercedes-Benz — 2008 SLR McLaren: Mercedes once made some sexy cars, including the pre-war 540K, the 300SL Gullwing, and the 300SL roadster that followed. Starting in the 1960s, the company moved towards heavier, more depressing cars. In the last decades most of the company’s cars have done little to raise my pulse. Finally the SL65 AMG came out, showing that a comfortable touring convertible could also be a fun, eleven-second quarter-mile rocket with great handling and brakes. I would have chosen the bi-turbo demon if not for the newest Merc supercar: the 2008 SLR McLaren. Unlike the last SLR, this one is a roadster. Enzo-like performance with Mercedes engineering and build-quality? I think we have our winner!!!

Mercury – 1968 Cougar GTE: I’ve long held the belief that the Mercury brand should have been killed-off prior to the Reagan era. It’s a testament to poor management at the Blue Oval that Mercury has been limping along for nearly forty years putting out mostly mediocre products. One must go back to 1968 to find a truly remarkable Mercury – the Cougar GTE. The Cougar GTE was not a Mustang with a Mercury badge, rather a well-appointed, extremely luxurious GT in the Facel-Vega, Iso Rivolta mold, but with a 427-ci V8 producing 390 horses. The big block cars came with heavy-duty suspensions, which combined with the V8’s massive torque to make it a capable road burner. After ’68, the Cougars got too big and too heavy.

MINI – 2008 Mini Cooper S: The original Mini would be a no-brainer decision, because it was all things to all people: economical family car, practical city car, fashion statement, rally car, and racer, but in actuality, it wasn’t made by Mini, rather BMC under the Austin and Morris brands, which no longer exist. So basically, the only cars from which to choose are those under the brand since returning to America. The basic Cooper S is a fun vehicle in a surprisingly useful package. I wouldn’t want to have to fit my family in one, but I happily use a Cooper S to autocross, rally or commute.

Mitsubishi – 2008 Lancer Evolution: Sometimes the answer is just so simple! The Evo has been Mitsubishi’s best car for years, but it simply took the company a while to get it to the USA. It’s actually somewhat sad, because most of Mitsubishi’s other offerings have been junk, plastic sporty cars for kids, or in the case of the 3000GT, overpriced, overweight, underperforming fashion statements. The Evo, however, is a great piece of purpose-built machinery – a no frills fun car that delivers on its billing.

Nissan 2009 GTR: Its amazing performance, good looks and great Skyline history make it the Nissan that journalists and enthusiasts will talk about for generations. It takes a technological masterpiece like the GTR to keep me from selecting the 1970 240Z, which still is one of the best sports cars ever made.

Pontiac– 1965 GTO Convertible: I’ve driven plenty of Pontiacs over the years, and I’m always amazed at how little content there is to back up the image. The SD-455 and ’77 Trans Ams TA-6.6 SE are both guilty pleasures of mine, but TAs aren’t nearly as fun to drive as they are to look at. Later Firebirds were better to drive, but man those things had more tacky plastic than Joan Rivers’ face. So to pick one best of breed Pontiac is tough. A fuel-injected ‘58 Bonneville would be nice, but not as great as the wonderful second-year Goat convertible with Tripower and a four speed.

Porsche – 2006 Carrera GT: Just like with Ferrari, there are so many great cars from which to choose. Porsches simply keep getting better – and now we’re at the point where journalists are slamming amazing vehicles like the 911 Turbo for being too easy to drive at ridiculously high speeds. Indeed, if it weren’t for the existence of the incredible Carrera GT supercar, I’d choose a 2008 911 Turbo Cabriolet in a heartbeat. (C’mon, a droptop that can hit triple-digits faster than you can say “sorry officer”, what’s not to love?) As good as the 911 series is, it’s no match for the uber-desirable GT, a car that won’t be eclipsed by another Porsche in terms of performance and exclusivity for twenty or thirty years.

Rolls-Royce – 1965 Silver Cloud III Mulliner Park Ward “Chinese Eye” Continental Drop Head Coupe: It’s a mouthful, but the SCIII Continental DHC with limited-edition Mulliner Park Ward body (featuring slanted dual headlamp clusters, hence the “Chinese Eye” descriptive,) was one of the last great cars from the storied marque. The Corniche convertible that came after was more than 500-pounds heavier, plus significantly more complex (especially the braking system.) R-Rs from the 1950s and 1960s drove well, but those in the 1970s and 1980s felt more like numb, bloated Buicks. The current Phantom is nothing more than a caricature…in England a new R-R owner is viewed as someone with money, but no style, taste or class.

Saab – 2008 9-3 SportCombi: The only Saab I remember really liking was the mid-80s 9000. That car, however, turned out to be a maintenance nightmare. GM’s involvement with Saab hasn’t really paid too many dividends, but the new SportCombi is actually a heck of nice small wagon. It’s basically a step up from a Subaru in luxury, but maybe a step down in reliability. Still, it remains the best Saab yet.

Saturn — 2008 Sky: Who would have thought that Saturn would ever get such an amazing roadster like the Sky? The division was teetering on the brink when the Sky was green-lighted, seemingly as an afterthought in a plan to bank on the Pontiac Solstice. Whereas the Solstice seems odd looking, the Sky is a sweet blend of curves and taught lines. Better appointed than its Pontiac brother, the Sky is simply a nicer package, and by far the best product to wear the Saturn badge.

Scion — 2007 tC: I think I’d turn this into an SCCA racer or a car to beat-up on the drag strip. The tC is a good looking car…unfortunately, all the cars with the Scion badge are cheap pieces of tin.

smart — 2008 ForTo Cabriolet: People frequently ask me my opinion of smart…my standard response: “dumb.” Actually, they’re great for Europe and Asia, where city streets are tiny and congested. In America, they are almost useless, and more of a fashion statement. If you want to say you care about the environment, buy one of the many cars that get better fuel mileage. Since only two models are available in the US, I’d take the Cabrio.

Subaru — 2006 WRX STi: What’s more fun than a WRX? One with more power and a really, really, really gaudy wing on back. The new WRX is too soft, and I’m not a fan of hatches, so I’d stick with the now gone STi sedan.

Suzuki – 2008 XL7: I once compared 25 SUVs back to back on both road and off road courses. While other journalists were jabbering about the capabilities of the then-new Hummer H2 and Range Rover, I was pointing-out that the Suzuki XL7 tackled the same muddy hills and dips in rear-wheel-drive mode. Suzukis will always be junky low-rent transportation—vehicles for people who don’t care much about what they drive, but at least the XL7 was a competent SUV that offered just as much usability as other choices two and three times the cost.

Toyota –1968 2000GT: For a company that has become the world leader, it’s amazing how few impressive vehicles it has produced. The 2000GT was by far its best achievement, being both sexy and extremely high-tech. The car has never been easy to obtain, because its desirability has maintained since before it even debuted. The only other car Toyota has produced that even comes within a mile of the 2000GT was the final US-spec Supra Turbo.

Volkswagen — 2005 Phaeton: VW has produced many cars that I thought were cute (Karmann-Ghia), cool-looking (Scirocco), or fun to drive (GTI). Unfortunately, I’ve never thought any of them were well-built or deliver enough bang for the buck to consider ever owning. Since the amphibious Schwimmwagen was never a production vehicle, I suppose I’d choose one of the much-maligned now discontinued Phaetons with the W8 engine. The thought of such an expensive VW made them impossible to sell, but the Phaetons were, and still are great drivers. Boring, but nice.

Volvo — 1968 P1800S: Leave it to me to pick the one attempt by Volvo to produce a sports car. The P1800 remains the prettiest car Volvo ever designed. It also was built tough, and thousands are still on the road. One gentleman has over three million miles on his. Simple, robust, fun – although a little heavy to get too racy, the P1800 combines style, substance and reliability in a way that has definitely eluded Volvo since.

Not your grandpa’s ‘55 265-ci Corvette — Chevy announces the 2009 Corvette ZR1 with LS9 Small-Block

Ladies and gentlemen, the cat is officially out of the bag.  What started as rumors of a super-Corvette called Blue Devil almost a half-decade ago is finally here!  The most powerful car ever offered by GM, the 2009 Corvette ZR1 shows that the Small-Block Chevy is still the world’s most flexible engine.

Straight from the horse’s mouth — here’s the official press release with all the juicy details!

2009 Corvette ZR1 Powered By The Most Powerful Production Engine Ever From GM: The Supercharged LS9 Small-Block V-8

PONTIAC, Mich. – When it arrives next summer, the 2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 will be the most powerful and fastest production car ever produced by General Motors, with performance enabled by a new, supercharged 6.2L LS9 small-block V-8 engine.

Incorporating the engineering experience already found in the Corvette Z06’a LS7 engine and the new-for-2008 6.2L LS3 of the Corvette, GM Powertain is targeting 100 horsepower per liter for the LS9, or 620 horsepower (462 kW), and approximately 595 lb.-ft. of torque (807 Nm); final SAE-certified power levels will be available in early March 2008.

It is, indeed, the ultimate small-block engine for the ultimate Corvette.

“When you experience the LS9 in the Corvette ZR1, the terms performance and refinement take on a new meaning,” said Tom Stephens, group vice president for GM Powertrain and Quality. “The LS9 demonstrates an outstanding performance range, with smooth driveability at low speeds, and surprisingly fierce performance when the customer wants more power.”

The enabler of the LS9’s performance is a new, large positive-displacement Roots-type supercharger – with a unique four-lobe design – developed for the engine by Eaton. It is teamed with an integrated charge cooling system that reduces inlet air temperature for maximum performance. The LS9 represents the first of several new, supercharged small-block engines that will be introduced in GM vehicles in the near future, each using superchargers of similar design.

“The small-block V-8 once again demonstrates it boundless horsepower potential, versatile design and an architecture with proven quality, durability and reliability,” said Stephens. “We haven’t yet realized the small-block’s performance potential.”

Performance range

More than just its tremendous peak horsepower and torque numbers, the supercharged LS9 makes big power at lower rpm and carries it in a wide arc to 6,600 rpm. GM Powertrain testing shows the engine makes approximately 300 horsepower (224 kW) at 3,000 rpm and nearly 320 lb.-ft. of torque (434 Nm) at only 1,000 rpm. Torque tops 585 lb.-ft. (793 Nm) at about the 4,000-rpm mark, while horsepower peaks at 6,500 rpm. The engine produces 90 percent of peak torque from 2,600 rpm to 6,000 rpm.

Heavy-duty and lightweight reciprocating components enable the engine’s confident high-rpm performance, while the large-displacement Eaton supercharger pushes enough air to help the engine maintain power through the upper levels of the rpm band.

“The sixth-generation design of the supercharger expands the ‘sweet zone’ of the compressor’s effectiveness, broadening it to help make power lower in the rpm band,” said Ron Meegan, assistant chief engineer. “To put it simply, the low-end torque is amazing.”

The LS9 is assembled by hand at GM’s Performance Build Center, a unique, small-volume engine production facility in Wixom, Mich., that also builds the Corvette Z06’s LS7 engine and other high-performance GM production engines.

Cylinder block and reciprocating assembly details

The LS9’s aluminum cylinder block features steel, six-bolt main bearing caps, with enlarged vent windows in the second and third bulkheads for enhanced bay to bay breathing. Cast iron cylinder liners – measuring 4.06 inches (103.25 mm) in bore diameter – are inserted in the aluminum block and they are finish-bored and honed with a deck plate installed. The deck plate simulates the pressure and minute dimensional variances applied to the block when the cylinder heads are installed, ensuring a higher degree of accuracy that promotes maximum cylinder head sealing, piston ring fit and overall engine performance.

Nestled inside the cylinder block is a forged steel crankshaft that delivers the LS9’s 3.62-inch (92 mm) stroke. It features a smaller-diameter ignition-triggering reluctor wheel and a nine-bolt flange – the outer face of the crankshaft on which the flywheel is mounted – that provides more clamping strength. Other non-supercharged 6.2L engines, such as the base Corvette’s LS3, have a six-bolt flange. A torsional damper mounted to the front of the crankshaft features a keyway and friction washer, which also is designed to support the engine’s high loads.

Attached to the crankshaft is a set of titanium connecting rods and forged aluminum pistons, which, when combined with the cylinder heads, delivers a 9.1:1 compression ratio. This combination is extremely durable and lightweight, enabling the LS9’s high-rpm capability.

Cylinder head details

The basic cylinder head design of the LS9 is similar to the L92-type head found on the LS3 V-8, but it is cast with a premium A356T6 alloy that is better at handling the heat generated by the supercharged engine – particularly in the bridge area of the cylinder head, between the intake and exhaust valves.

In addition to the special aluminum alloy, each head is created with a rotocast method. Also known as spin casting, the process involves pouring the molten alloy into a rotating mold. This makes for more even distribution of the material and virtually eliminates porosity – air bubbles or pockets trapped in the casting – for a stronger finished product.

Although the heads are based on the L92 design, they feature swirl-inducing wings that are cast into the intake ports. This improves the mixture motion of the pressurized air/fuel charge. The charge enters the combustion chambers via titanium intake valves that measure 2.16 inches (55 mm) in diameter. Spent gases exit the chambers through 1.59-inch (40.4 mm) hollow stem sodium-filled exhaust valves. The titanium intake and sodium-filled exhaust valves are used for their lightweight and high-rpm capability.

To ensure sealing of the pressurized engine, unique, four-layer steel head gaskets are used with the LS9’s heads.

Camshaft and valvetrain

The broad power band enabled by the LS9’s large-displacement supercharger allows it to make strong low-end torque and great high-rpm horsepower, which allowed engineers to specify a camshaft with a relatively low lift of 0.555-inch (14.1 mm) for both the intake and exhaust valves. This low-overlap cam has lower lift and slower valve-closing speeds than the Z06’s 505-horsepower (377 kW) LS7, helping the LS9 – with its approximately 620 horsepower – deliver exemplary idle and low-speed driving qualities.

The camshaft actuates a valvetrain that includes many components, including the lifters, rocker arms and valve springs, of the LS3 engine. However, LS7 retainers are used to support the engine’s high-rpm performance.

Supercharger and charge cooler details

The LS9’s R2300 supercharger is a sixth-generation design from Eaton, with a case that is specific to the Corvette application. The supercharger features a new four-lobe rotor design that promotes quieter and more efficient performance, while its large, 2.3-liter displacement ensures adequate air volume at high rpm to support the engine’s high-horsepower aspiration. Maximum boost pressure is 10.5 psi (0.72 bar).

The supercharger is an engine-driven air pump that contains a pair of long rotors that are twisted somewhat like pretzel sticks. As they spin around each other, incoming air is squeezed between the rotors and pushed under pressure into the engine – forcing more air into the engine than it could draw under “natural” aspiration. The rotors are driven by a pulley and belt that are connected to the engine’s accessory drive system.

Because the pressurized air is hotter than naturally aspirated air, the LS9 employs a liquid-to-air charge cooling system to reduce inlet air temperature after it exits the supercharger – reducing the inlet air temperature by up to 60 degrees C (140 F). Cooler air is denser and allows the engine to make the most of its high-pressure air charge. The charge cooling system includes a dedicated coolant circuit with a remote-mounted pump and reservoir.

The design of the supercharger case and its integrated charge cooling system was driven by the space and dimensions afforded under the Corvette’s hood. To that end, the charge cooler was designed as a “dual brick” system, with a pair of low-profile heat exchangers mounted longitudinally on either side of the supercharger. Coupled with the supercharger itself, this integrated design mounts to the engine in place of a conventional intake manifold and is only slightly taller than a non-supercharged 6.2L engine. The air inlet and rotor drive pulley are positioned at the front of the supercharger.

Additional engine details

Oiling system: The LS9 uses a dry-sump oiling system that is similar in design to the LS7’s system, but features a higher-capacity pump to ensure adequate oil pressure at the higher cornering loads the ZR1 is capable of achieving. An oil-pan mounted oil cooler is integrated, too, along with piston-cooling oil squirters located in the cylinder block. The expanded performance envelope of the Corvette ZR1 required changes to the dry sump system also used in the Z06. System capacity is increased and scavenge performance improved to meet the demands of Chevrolet’s highest-performance sportscar.

Water pump: To compensate for the heavier load generated by the supercharger drive system, an LS9-specific water pump with increased bearing capacity is used.

Accessory drive system: In order to package the accessory drive system in the Corvette’s engine compartment, the supercharger drive was integrated into the main drive system. This required a wider 11-rib accessory drive system to be used with the LS9 in order to support the load delivered by the supercharger.

Fuel system: The LS9 uses high-capacity 48-lb./hr. fuel injectors with center-feed fuel lines. The center feed system ensures even fuel flow between the cylinders with less noise. In order to ensure fuel system performance during low speed operation as well as under the extreme performance requirements of wide open throttle (WOT), a dual pressure fuel system was developed. This system operates at 250 kPa at idle and low speed, and ratchets up to 600 kPa at higher-speed and WOT conditions.

Throttle body: An 87-mm, single-bore throttle body is used to draw air into the engine. It is electronically controlled.

Rocker covers / ignition coils: Unique rocker covers with new, direct-mount ignition coils are used. Other Gen IV engines, such as the LS3, feature coil packs mounted to a bracket. The LS9’s direct-mounted coils offer a cleaner appearance and a shorter lead between the coil and spark plug.

Beauty cover: A special engine cover is attached to the top of the LS9. It surrounds the intercooler, which is visible through a hood window, accenting the supercharger while simultaneously reducing noise. The cover has “LS9 SUPERCHARGED” script on the left and right sides, along with a debossed Corvette crossed flags emblem on the front.

New six-speed manual transmission

The Corvette ZR1’s LS9 engine is backed by a Tremec TR6060 six-speed manual transmission, with a twin-disc clutch system. It is based on the proven T56 six-speed, but upgraded to handle the LS9’s torque output and delivers improved shift quality

The twin-disc clutch system provides exceptional clamping power, while maintaining an easy clutch effort. The system employs a pair of 260-mm discs, which spreads out the engine’s torque load over a wider area, enabling tremendous clamping power to channel the LS9’s torque. It also dissipates heat better and extends the clutch life (in normal driving).

Thanks to comparatively small plates, the twin-disc system enables similar disc inertia to the Corvette Z06, which has a 290-mm single-disc system, contributing to low shift effort and providing exceptionally smooth engagement and light pedal effort. In fact, the more powerful ZR1 has a pedal effort similar to the Z06.

ZR1-specific gearing in the transmission provides a steep first-gear ratio that helps launch the car. The car’s top speed is achieved in sixth gear – a change from the fifth-gear top-speed run-outs in the manual-transmission Corvette and Corvette Z06. The gears also are designed to balance performance with refinement. The angles of the gear teeth are optimized to provide both strength and quietness.