Earth Day 2013

For today's tree-hugging holiday, I've compiled a list of new cars, all of which are supposed to be 2013's Top 10 Best Cars for the Environment.

10. Lincoln MKZ Hybrid

9.   Toyota Avalon Hybrid

8.   Honda Fit EV

7.   VW Jetta Hybrid

6.   Ford C-Max Energi

5.   Toyota Prius Plug-in

4.   Chevy Volt

3.   Ford Focus Electric

2.   Tesla Model S

1.   Nissan Leaf

Now, see how bored you are after glancing through that? That's why I blog about interesting cars and other motoring related topics, not this sort of thing.

Happy Eco-mentalist Day.

Hennessey Venom GT

Well, the new Hennessey Venom GT is the fastest production car... in the world.

It has 1244 bhp. Take a look.
Here you can see the GT setting the world record time for 0-300 km/h at 13.18 seconds.



As of now, the Hennessey Venom GT is the fastest car that you can buy, with a top speed of 267.8 mph. It beats the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport, which held the previous world record at 265.7 mph. The interesting thing is that the real top speed of the production Veyron is only 258. Bugatti limits the top speed of all their hypercars. 

Hennessey made sure that they pointed this out before beating the previous record anyway.

Until recently, Bugatti held the claim to "Fastest Production Car", but the reality is that the Veyrons that are available to the public - defined as a production car - only go 258 mph. So the Veyron that broke all of the previous production car speed records wasn't actually a production car at all.

You can actually buy a Hennessey Venom GT identical to the one used above, which goes almost 10 mph faster than the Veyron you'll find at your local Bugatti dealer.

I have only one real problem with Hennessey though, and that is that they don't make their own cars. The Venom GT is just a Lotus with tweaked and tuned performance bits. Hennessey does this with plenty of other cars too. They'll take things like a Camaro, a Mustang, or an M3, and just make it insane. It's really cool, but they aren't a "car-maker". Hennessey, takes perfectly good cakes and puts the icing on. Still, you have to wonder what kind of cake they could make on their own. That's only a minor qualm though. I like Hennessey's icing.

Bugatti, alternatively, is backed by Volkswagen, and they make their cars from the beginning. The Veyron is not a tuned up Lotus.

You see what I'm saying here. It just feels better when you have a car that was born to be a hypercar. It was purpose built to be crazy fast. It was not born as an average Lotus Exige, that underwent a procedure later in life and received the ability to perform. 

Comparing the Veyron to the Venom GT is like comparing Superman to Spiderman. The Veyron was born with superpowers on another planet. The Venom GT was a nerdy, journalist that was bitten by a spider, and later received superpowers.


I have to say I always preferred Spiderman though. He was kind of the underdog. You have to like the Hennessey Venom GT for the same reason.

Well done on the new records Hennessey.







This whole argument about "fastest production car" will probably start back up in September, when Bugatti reveals the new 1600 hp Veyron. If Bugatti doesn't limit the top speed to the new one, Superman will be bulletproof.

Jeep Made in China

First off, no, Jeep is not made in China. As far as I can gather, Jeeps that will be sold in America will be manufactured in America, and that is the way it will stay. Hooray! I'll get to more on that in a minute.

In the conclusion of my last little article, I mentioned Mitt Romney. I'm not claiming in position in politics. And I don't mean to make any sort of statement in that regard. The reason I brought that up in the Tesla article, is because Romney had referred to Tesla as a failed government energy project. Obviously wrong there.

The Romney camp was wrong again when it came to its claims about Jeep. During last year's election, in a late effort to rally some votes in the always hotly contested state of Ohio, Romney's campaign ran a television advertisement implying that Jeep, which has always been an American-made icon, will be moving its production to China. According to them, this was simply an effort to portray a loss of jobs to China, a nation that competes with us in the marketplace. They say that they weren't insinuating real facts, but rather that this "will be" happening, like in a future-tense, hypothetical, metaphysical sense. Or something like that. 

As you can figure, the goal was to scare voters into thinking that they were going to lose their jobs to China, and somehow the Obama administration had caused this.

They continued to run the ads, and their inaccurate information scared and confused a lot of people.

(This ad campaign later won the Huffington Post "Lie of the Year" Award 2012, simply because it is nothing but untruth.)

Sergio Marchionne, Chrysler's CEO (above), promptly responded. In an e-mail to Chrysler employees, many of which were actually becoming concerned with their own job security because of Romney's false statements, Marchionne wrote, " I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China. It is inaccurate to suggest anything else."

He went on a bit more in the memo:
"North American production is critical to achieving our goal of selling 800,00 Jeep vehicles by 2014... We also are investing to improve and expand our entire U.S. operations, including our Jeep facilities."

Right to the point- you have to like this Marchionne guy.

Mr. Marchionne later said that the efforts made by Jeep as a part of the Fiat-Chrysler family would only strengthen Chrysler in the U.S., not weaken it.

“Jeep is one of our truly global brands with uniquely American roots. This will never change,” he said.

AMERICA

Tesla Model S

First off, I want to point out very clearly that I do not have an agenda against electric cars. I would own one if there was one that functioned just as well as a gasoline powered car. That said, let's take a look at the best electric car in the world.

This is the Tesla Model S. It is an electric car. It is nice to look at.

Now, if you are a true, die-hard petrol-head, you may think that talking about a car with electric power instead of one that is gasoline powered is just something that you shouldn't do. Motor Trend, the American-biased American-based Grand Chancellor of all things fast and furious, named this car the 2013 Car of the Year though, so that must mean something, right? They are a reliable source for the masses, and surely they wouldn't want to mislead their motoring enthusiast readers. That's what it would seem on the surface.

In my opinion, the Model S won the award for Car of the Year, simply because it is an electric car, that performs much like any other sedan of its time, maybe even better than some, and it looks good. In fact, it looks great.  Do looks, comparability, and innovativeness alone warrant a Car of the Year Award though? Not to me. Here’s why.

In Motor Trend’s March 2013 article on the Model S, they say that the Model S is “not just a good electric car, it is a good car.” They may be right. Some of the specs and observations they make, at least paint a picture of a car that functions as a sporty sedan running off of electricity. Where I think you must start to raise some red flags though is when you look at what their claim is based off of. They are saying that the Model S is great, because someone charged it up, and rolled it on to a track, where their trained drivers and writers can ride around and take notes. It’s a little on the quick side and handles well. It’s comparable to other luxury sedans. It seats five adults and has good space for passengers and cargo. You know, that sort of uninteresting blathering that they tend to write into their articles. Usually, these sort of Motor Trend reviews can be useful to consumers and car buyers, but in this one they still fail to notice the most obvious flaw with the car. 

Their review is skewed because it does not take into account the fact that is possibly the most significant repercussion of owning an electric-engine car as your primary means of daily transportation.

The Model S has to be charged. Tesla claims you’ll get 62 miles per hour of charge if you use the “High Power Wall Connector”. You can use this method to charge more quickly only if you opt for the more expensive Dual-Charger setup. By my estimate, the High Power connector, which you would have in your home garage, would actually give you plenty enough charge to make your daily commute. So, if you put you Model S into the charger every night while you sleep, you can make it to work, some errands, and back home. I don't see that this is a huge deal, but I feel I must quote one of my colleagues, as he so bluntly pointed out, "What if you forget to plug it in one night? You won't be making that big meeting in the morning, that's for sure."

What if you're not just going on your drive to work though? What if you’re going on a road trip or a vacation, and you’ll be driving for an entire day. Inevitably, your car will at some point need reviving. Tesla says that you can get 31 miles per hour of charging if you use what they call a “Mobile Connector”. This connects to a type of outlet you’d find on any wall.

So, to refuel your car on petrol that takes 4 minutes, let’s say. And in that 4 minutes’ time, your car is now ready to go again. If you pull over and plug your Tesla Model S into its “Mobile Connector” for the same amount of time, you will be able to drive for 2 miles. 2 miles. The car that I drive is a comparable sedan, and in one short, gasoline fill-up, I can go for about 240 miles, highway. Using the mobile wall charger, The Tesla Model S would have to charge for 7 hours and 45 minutes before it could go the same distance.

Tesla says that in the near future they look to expand the amount of Supercharger Stations across the country, and in the next few years they’ll have a hundred stations in California. They have to cater to the affluent environmentalists out there. The Supercharger gives the Model S 300 miles per hour of charging. (If I can make a note here, that’s still only 20 miles of power in the amount of time it takes to top off a petrol tank.)

Tesla even does their best to mask the impracticality of the Model S in their incomprehensible spec sheet. If you're an electrical engineer or a Baby Einstein you can understand it, but for most anyone else, its just too much jargon, scientific descriptions, and electrical terminology. They say that they seek to provide an affordable luxury sedan, so that the common auto buyer has the Model S as an alternatively fueled option, but seriously can anyone understand this? http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs

I won't go on too much about the projected battery life and the price of replacing your battery once it has died completely. In electric cars, the battery life has historically been about 7 to 10 years, maximum. The cost of replacing the battery is more than the cost of replacing the entire transmission in other similar sedans. I don't know if Tesla has worked extensively to extend the battery life expectancy, but I do know that it would be more than inconvenient to replace the transmission in any other new car every 10 years.

The bottom-line is that the Tesla Model S does have its short range functionality, and is comparable to most other sedans in many ways. However, it is severely limited by the amount of time it takes to recharge its battery, and the availability of capable charge sources.

I do love the Model S for its looks, and I admire the work that Tesla is doing. It is a good car. I hope that their electric car projects can continue to have the success and recognition they have bolstered recently. 

Marvel at it one last time.

I won’t be buying one though. At least not until you can recharge its battery in less than ten minutes. That’s just a huge limitation that I feel you can’t overlook – unless you’re a Motor Trend writer.

I want to hear some more you guys on the subject of electric cars. I am not the biggest fan yet, but I could be swayed. Elon Musk, go ahead and send me one and I'll let you know if I change my mind. Oh and Mitt Romney, if you're reading this, you couldn't have been more wrong about Tesla. The rest of you, comment below and tell me if I'm being obtuse here.

Pagani: Product of a Dream

I could go on for days, but I'll try to be relatively brief about why Pagani is truly one of the coolest stories in the last few years of automotives. The best way I think I can do this is talk a little history. You could also go check out their site because it is a work of art. http://www.pagani.com/en/default.aspx

If you didn't know already, Pagani, is an automobili maker from Italy. Shown above is the Zonda Cinque Roadster, just to show you sort of the end product, as it were. What makes them so great is that they are not just another one of those ridiculous car manufacturers - Lancia, Maserati, Alfa Romeo, Bertone - that seem like they've been around since the formation of the earth. Pagani's founder, Horatio Pagani, was in fact not even around at the time of the World War. 

Born in Argentina in 1955, Mr. Pagani was just a guy that loved cars. 

These were some of his first creations, from 1967. I guess, if you count these, you can say that Pagani has been independently making cars about as long as Lamborghini. If you don't count these, then you can say that Pagani Automobili started making cars officially in 1992, after its foundation, and the start of the Zonda project.

Between these models and '92 though, Horatio was rather busy.

• 1971-1972:  Built a small motorcycle and a buggy (based on a Renault design)
• 1972:  Received a technical degree.
• 1972-1974:  Degree in Design at a La Plata University in Argentina
• 1975:  Studied Mechanical Engineering at the University of Rosario in Argentina

All this seems very uninteresting, but its going somewhere I promise. I'll summarize some of the bits in between.

Pagani did some designing things; bar furniture, orthopedic chairs, and beds. If you look at the beauty of the interior in Pagani's current cars, you see that Pagani knows design. Around '79, he also built a complete, functional F2 car seen to the right. 

In '83 he moved to Italy. After seeing some of his prior work and experience, Jeep hired him to work on the Jeep LMA, and a short time later, Lamborghini recruited him to work on the Countach Evoluzione, seen below. 

This was the first car ever to have a carbon fiber frame. Any die hard gear-head or petrol-head out there understands how monumental this achievement was for the advancement of cars in to the modern age. Pagani also oversaw design of the Lamborghini Countach Anniversary.

After doing some more design for the Lambo guys on the L30 and the Diablo, and then some interior design for various models of Lamborghini, Pagani started the full Zonda project in 1993. After years of studying, forming, sculpting, modeling, designing, brewing, et cetera, Pagani released the Zonda C12, in all of its glory, at the 1999 Geneva motor show. The Zonda F, and Zonda R would be released in '05 and '08 respectively.

The Pagani Huayra, is the newest model to Pagani, released 2011. Above is the Huayra Carbon. The Huayra- pronounced hoo-why-rah - was the performance car of the year 2012 (CAR), and holds the record time at the BBC Top Gear Test track, 1:13.8.

Jeremy Clarkson's review of the Zonda R, from early 2011, if you just want to see and hear some of what Pagani is on about. http://youtu.be/jL2B_wN4XW0

The reason Pagani is so interesting and relevant to me is not just because they make really cool, super fast, high priced, hypercars, that are undoubtedly covering nearly every ten year old boy's wall all over the world. Pagani is the story of a dream coming to fruition. Because Horatio was so driven, we get Pagani.

There is no denying the fact that Pagani makes great cars. 

It really is too bad that, for most of the world, their cars will remain simply a dream because of the very luxurious price tag.



If you are a fan of Pagani, or you just like the observations made above in my James May-esque rant, comment below.

Jeff Gordon does a prank

Watch "Pepsi MAX & Jeff Gordon Present: "Test Drive"" on YouTube
for anybody who hasn't seen this yet. this isn't an official posting, but it is hilarious and related to cars.

Car Brand Slogans: A Review

Below is a listing of some slogans that were recently used by automotive companies, along with a little nugget of truth about each. Being in marketing, I study these kind of things, and I thought it'd be entertaining for you all to have a glimpse into the mind of a genius.

BMW: “BMW. The Ultimate Driving Machine.”
Audi: “Keeping ahead through technology.”
You have to enjoy the fact that your grammar check will grab you for both of these ads and tell you "nein, your sentence is nicht gut." These slogans are about the same: very assertive, very German, not bad, but not very memorable.

Mercedes-Benz: “Unlike any other.”
Mercedes-Benz is deeply involved in so many different things related to automotive manufacturing; one could really say that they are “unlike any other.” This one is alright.

Alfa Romeo: “Alfa Romeo. Beauty is not enough.”
This slogan is good because it is accurate, not ridiculous boasting or just making up nonsense like most slogans. Alfa really does make truly beautiful cars, so this works. I also love Alfa Romeo so I'm totally biased here.

Ford: “Built Ford Tough”
Effective. You have to admit, it works. My only problem with this is that Ford writes its ads as if their target is car-buying Neanderthals.

Dodge: “Dodge. Grab life by the horns.”
Not great. This ad slogan was written exclusively for high school football coaches.

Chevrolet: “Chevy: an American revolution.”
You can’t really point out a problem with this slogan, but then, you couldn’t repeat it to me two minutes from now either, could you?

Volkswagen: “Relieves gas pains.”
This is a great plan from VW’s marketers – have your customers associate your brand with flatulence.

Toyota: “The car in front is a Toyota.”
            “Toyota. Moving forward.”
When you read the old ad campaign, “The car in front is a Toyota”, you just think - if there is a Toyota in front of me, the accelerator is stuck. Then you read the new, slightly better slogan: “Toyota. Moving forward.” – you still think - of course its moving forward, it can’t stop either.

Saturn: “Saturn. Like always. Like never before.”
A part of this slogan is accurate; like always, your Saturn will be absolute rubbish. Like never before… no it will be embarrassing, like it always was.

(I have enlarged their logo image here so that you can marvel at this absolutely wonderful masterpiece artwork that is the Saturn logo.)

If you have a favorite slogan not seen here, or if I have offended your most beloved car maker in some way, post below in the comment box. I might enjoy reading your submissions.

Dodge Dart (its a Fiat)

Looks awful right? This is a 1966 Dodge Dart. They were decent little 4-door sedans. Nothing special though. Just a car. Many who remembered this car were far from elated, or even cared at all, when Dodge announced that they were going to release a new version of the Dart in America last year.

The 2012 Dart was targeted at younger people - those who had no memory of the lame old Dart. The CEO of Dodge-Chrysler said before its release, "Whoever’s buying [The Dart] doesn’t have an historical memory of our segment predecessors... It’s almost virgin territory when you’re talking to young buyers now.”

Dodge did a great job, I think, in targeting this market through funny ads that featured cool guy extraordinaire, Tom Brady, and financing programs that allow you to register parts of the car like a wedding registry. 

Also, it looks brilliant.

In spite of its looks and a good marketing campaign though, the new Dart did not sell well in 2012. And I'll tell you why.

First of all, its positioning. Dodge-Chrysler Group is now owned by Fiat Motors, which means really nothing. (The end consumer doesn't usually see a change in mid-range cars when these type of mergers take place.) This means that, while the Dart's success in the small car market is crucial to the success of Dodge, its success is being hindered by its position in that market. You would find the Dart directly between the Fiat 500 and the Chrysler 200, both of which seem to be preferable by the small car buyers of 2012. 

Another reason the Dart did not succeed in its initial year was not the fact that the first 5000 sold only had manual transmission. (Dodge's CEO actually tried to use that as a possible reason for poor sales) The reason that the Dart didn't do so great last year was the fact that people don't expect a small car from Dodge-Chrysler, because of their almost total reliance on large cars; trucks, vans, and SUV's. 70% of their vehicle sales last year were trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles. 

What does this mean for the Dart? It means that it may just take a few years to catch on. It is a good little car, without a doubt, and it looks stunning. I think that people are not perceptive of the fact that Dodge can make a good, small car. When they think Dodge, they think big. Dodge will just have to be diligent marketers so they can become competitive in the small car market, like they want.

We will just have to give it another full year to see if the Fiat dream is going to come true, and if Dodge can sustain its survival through a revival of the Dart.

Australia Wins

I have been quite intrigued lately by the new push in NASCAR to return to actual stock car racing. What I mean to say is that the cars that are being used in stock car racing this year are closer to actual production cars used by Chevy, Ford, and Toyota. Personally, I love this. I feel like its a bit of a revival. The rebirth of something that had been killed by the inception of those cookie cutter so called "stock" cars that were all essentially the same but held different badges on the front.

However, I am not going to ramble about on NASCAR racing. What I have been recently excited by with all this is the new Chevy, the Chevrolet SS.

There it is. The right one, of course, is the one I'm mostly talking about here. The fact that it is similar to the racing car is simply a nugget of extra excitement for Chevy fans.

Here's a few other reasons that I can't wait to see more about when this car is released for public sale:

• 6.2L V8
• 6 speed automatic transmission with TAPshift - we'll have to see if that actually works at all.
• Front Brembo brakes
• Sport Suspension - which is probably just a bad thing.

Here's the spec sheet if you're curious yourself.

http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Chevy%20Culture/News/PreReaveal%20SS/02-PDF/SS_HeroCard.pdf

Let me tell you something else that is of great concern to me: The new flagship sports sedan for Chevrolet is designed by a group of some Aussie horseback riders.

Yes. Holden, the Australian subsidiary of General Motors has designed the Chevy SS.

Here is the Holden Commodore SS.

I do not feel that I need to argue this point any further. they are identical.

I simply find this to be rather intriguing, since within the next two years, I expect that many middle aged American men will be so excited to talk about their new personal 4-door race car that, to them, should be really be associated with Steve Irwin and Outback Steakhouse.

I am sure that the BBC Top Gear three just love this. The Americans stealing from Australia to have a decent sedan.

I am also fearful. Why you ask? Because, as a traditionalist American, I hate cars that have stupid designations like the LP640, or the MP4-12C. There is a simple reasoning behind this. I feel that cars are not just things. They aren't washing machines or robots. They have personalities. We can connect with them. I have only known one person to be okay with calling his friends C3PO and R2D2, and even then, they weren't his best friends. When it came down to it, Lando and Chewy were more personable.
So, I am okay with calling my car a Commodore, or a Stratos, or even a Fiesta. They are names that add to that character. I fear that Chevy will become like Infiniti or Lexus, who give their cars only these sort of code sequence designations. I don't want Chevy to let go of this character that they have had forever.

That's neither here nor there. 

I am genuinely, very anxiously, and hopefully anticipating the release of the bow-tie SS in the States. I think that it will be a good, solid little replacement for the SS Impala and SS Monte Carlo that Chevy has recently done away with entirely. 

I will be posting more later to confirm my happiness over what is likely going to be the best, somewhat reasonably priced GM car to have been released in the US for several years.

Until then, if you would like to make a commentary in regards to Australia becoming invested in middle-aged Americans, feel free.

The Viper

Lets start with a video about the history of the Viper, from its creation, up until today. 

http://vimeo.com/39664078

Right. So here's a little list of reasons why the SRT Viper is great.

1. Its roots: The Viper started basically as a dream, that took shape with a couple of guys with a passion for genuinely great, fast cars, working after hours for pure enjoyment. The Viper was born as a commitment to American muscle, but not in the way that we see so commonly, sacrificing handling and grip for tail-happiness and straight-line speed. The Viper is the American supercar.
2. The maker: Street and Racing Team, or SRT, has taken on different names since they first conceptualized the Viper in 1989, but their goal has remained the same: build a supercar that, while rooted in American muscle, can win against the best on a track
3. The performance: The engine is just a massive V10. The power that the Viper's engine puts out was enough to break the record time for an American production car around the Nürburgring in 2011 - only second in all "production" cars to the Gumpert Apollo. The Viper ACR of the same year also broke lap time records at Laguna Seca and won numerous events Le Mans.

But all those records was the old Viper. That is in the past.

This new 2013 Viper, is almost definitely going to be even quicker - take a second to think about that.

A picture comparison: notice the body styling and and the lines. They have barely changed.

This car was released for retail sale in 1991. Not far off a Ferrari 599. In truth, it looks so modern that I would buy this if it came out today. The Viper's production team was a group of visionaries.

Now two little things have changed that have drawn some complaints; the lights and the logo. The lights have been changed  due to new government mandates, that require headlamps to be a certain height. The logo was voted in by current Viper owners. Beautiful customer involvement strategy, SRT. Outside of those little things, the meat of it is the same. The engine and tuning is about the same, but apparently this one is going to handle better and be more grippy while cornering.

You may want to hear what is realistically wrong with this car, after all, the Americans could have never actually built a supercar that is any good, could they? Oh yes. They have done just that.

The only real complaint I heard that may be of concern to prospective buyers, or car enthusiasts was from racing car driver Randy Pobst, who, while taking the Viper around a track test at Laguna Seca, said it is "fun and satisfying, but you better be on your game if you're going to drive fast in a Viper." So okay, maybe its still a little bit of a bear to drive,  but I think that SRT weren't going for the same target market as Hyundai and Kia. 

Pobst also said that the "ride is terrible, but who cares on the track." He's exactly right about this. Viper drivers aren't into their speedy investment because is comfortable or plush. 

That, to me, is what's great about the Viper - unashamedly loud, uncomfortable, and blazing fast. And in addition to that, this can serve to silence all of those European petrol-heads, who seem to think that Americans can't make a proper supercar.

The old Viper was undoubtedly a wonderful car.
The new Viper is just as fantastic, but improved in terms of grip. I can't wait to see some of the records it'll break.

indisputably

GREAT CAR

The Worst Car Ever Created

or at least, worst made in recent American history

Living in the United States, you are surrounded by cars all of the time. Most everybody in the country either owns a car, or you at least see cars regularly as you commute to work or school. But, in the recent history of automotive production in America, what is the worst car? 

This.

In 2001, the car-making industry in America was just starting into a period of nearly half a dozen years economic decline that would nearly finish many automotive companies. Chrysler was one of these companies that were having difficulty in the ailing economy, so they decide to release the PT Cruiser.

This is directly from the Chrysler Group, in the press kit they released upon the PT Cruiser launch:"In the U.S., potential customers often view themselves as the 'social chairperson' and are not afraid of going their own way... The PT Cruiser can be whatever the individual owner wants it to be and fits any lifestyle."
They go on to say that their target market was young, adventurous people, who need an affordable, stylish car that could be versatile enough to fit the needs of a young person.

They created a car with the target market in mind being a group that doesn't care one lick about a car that is especially fast or good looking, but rather, seeks out a car for its functionality. I must admit, most of us value this in a car, but the PT doesn't have functionality. Chrysler gave the PT an impressive amount of cargo space in the back, but then cut that space in half with a ridiculous and pointless plastic shelf that they claimed could be useful "in tailgates or parties". They actually wanted college kids to buy this car.

Chrysler eventually realized that young people absolutely abhorred this car because it just looks terrible and there is nothing to it at all to be proud of. 

So they changed their target market to elderly people, who they found were buying them up in great numbers. Why were oldies attracted to this car? I can not say, but Chrysler was quoted in saying that "the older client base was attracted to the PT Cruiser... it reminded them of the days when they had family wagons." 

So nostalgia was what they were shooting for... and they give us this.

Dreadful.

So lets talk about some other things they did with this car, that, according to Chrysler, "transcends traditional automotive expectations by creating a new segment". 

• The interior is possibly the most cramped, miserable thing ever. Its like a prison cell on wheels.
• There is virtually no suspension. Because they were marketing to people who were older and clearly don't care about cars for performance, they created this little gremlin of a car that has no handling, no turning radius, no speed, and no acceleration.  (Unless or course you bought the one with the Turbo, in which case you probably aren't intelligent enough to even read this blog)

The only positive about this car - affordability. I would list affordability as a positive for a loaf of bread as well. 

The biggest negatives -this car serves little purpose at all, outside of the fact that it can roll forward. The ride comfort is much like sitting down on a skateboard, and even being near one makes you feel embarrassed.

Because they failed to ever actually find what they wanted to accomplish by being so unique, what came from the PT Cruiser is, well basically nothing. Truly a pile of worthless nothing, that hurts your stomach to look at. I would rather drive an 8 foot wide cheeseburger in my everyday commute.

This is what we should do to all remaining PT Cruisers.

http://youtu.be/G9_tuqAawJE

We should all seek to be as enterprising as these lads.

In summation, though you still see a lot of these cars still on the road, this car is about as useful as a snooze button on a smoke alarm.

THE WORST CAR EVER MADE
Chrysler PT Cruiser

1. If you disagree because you are an oldie who is enamored with your precious wood-grain paneled PT, I would love to hear your complaint via comment.
2. If you are a college kid who bought one to go tailgating and has loved your PT, I would love to hear your complaint via comment.
3. If you think that you have an argument as to which car might actually be worse, comment.

A Brief Introduction & The Ford Taurus

So here's how its going to work.

I'm Preston. I enjoy things that have engines and wheels. I am going to blog about different cars, and nearly any and all things related to motoring. This is the beginning of it all. Enjoy my musings.

The Ford Taurus: Then and Now

This is my first car - 1998 Ford Taurus SE. A wonderful piece of American machinery, this Taurus and all others will always be sort of special to me, because this one has served me well in my young age. It was my portal to freedom.

some specs:

• 3.0L 12-valve V6 engine
• 145 horsepower at 5200rpm
• 170 ft-lbs of torque at 3250rpm
• 4 speed automatic

It might seem like this would be a fast car, but that V6 has to carry over 3 tons of senseless weight.

The older Taurus models, this model year in particular, was not a looker at all, and really, there is nothing special about them at all. Honestly, if the government were to distribute basic transportation to us all, this would be it.

it pains me to say this because I adore my Taurus, but...
1998 Ford Taurus -- bad car.

Without any clever transition, this is the 2013 Taurus. More appealing to the eye, no question, than the 1998 model, this new Taurus looks more like a Jaguar or an Aston Martin, and much less like basic transportation.

This car is much quicker than the older model, and it looks much better. I look at this car and I actually want to drive it.

In researching I found that, if you're feeling creative, you can create your own 2013 Taurus here.
http://bp3.ford.com/2013-Ford-Taurus?branding=1&lang=en#/Models/

If you're not feeling like doing creativity,
some specs:

• 3.5L 24-valve DOHC TiVCT V6 engine - standard
• 6-speed electronically controlled automatic overdrive - standard

There's plenty of other boring technical things like electronic assisted this-and-that. But without any of that, I'll just go ahead and say it for you: in comparison to the fish-faced 1998 Taurus, this car is so much better in every single way.

now I want one because...

2013 Ford Taurus -- good car.

*This entire post leaves out of the picture the new 2013 Taurus SHO, which I hear is actually quite nice not only on the road, but also on the track. If you would be willing to drop over 40,000 on a heavy 4-door with AWD, this is my recommendation.

If you have any thoughts, please comment. 
I'd love to hear from you. especially if you disagree with me.