Autonet.ca

If ever there were any doubt that the auto industry is back to business as usual, you only need look as far back as the recent announcement at southern Ontario’s CAMI manufacturing complex.

For those unaware of the announcement, politicians came out to the General Motors/Suzuki joint venture plant in Ingersoll, Ont., to announce a $90 million investment that would go toward increasing production of the Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain models built at the complex, and to announce the recall of 150 workers downsized during the credit crunch at the beginning of 2009.

That’s good news for a company that has undergone massive restructuring, as well as for an industry that seemed to go into a death spiral as a result of the credit crisis.

And although just about every Ontarian welcomes every bit of good news concerning the eroding manufacturing base, it does potentially reassign development that may have been slated for GM’s home-base of Oshawa, Ontario. GM had earlier announced it would build a new Buick Regal (derived from the 2010 LaCrosse) in Oshawa.

Also on the “business as usual front”, though, is the fact that the current build philosophy seems to remain with larger utility vehicles or premium cars. Back in February 2009, the thinking was that General Motors and Chrysler were faltering because they had spent far too long catering to truck buyers while neglecting the economical smaller vehicles that were going to be in demand as gasoline extinction drew ever closer.

We accused the two of not building the vehicles North Americans wanted to buy, but apparently that “want to buy” thinking was only a temporary blip and the downturn in fortunes was a result of a “perfect storm” that pounded the companies’ strongholds.

Gas prices went through the ceiling in the summer of 2008, leading many consumers to consider trading in their large, gas guzzling vehicles. The housing crisis hit in the fall of 2008, causing many contractors to put off leasing those extra-large pickups they required for everyday work chores. The creditor protection and axing of certain dealerships and model lines made many potential buyers put off planned car purchases.

With the easing of those pressures, it’s once again obvious that North Americans still prefer their seven-seaters over econo-boxes (especially in the U.S.) and given their druthers, manufacturers are more willing to invest in good big vehicles because the per-vehicle profit margin is bigger on larger vehicles ... more sales + greater profit per vehicle = a quicker turnaround.

If all things keep going the way they are starting to go, it looks as if we’ll be back to building large pickups and SUVs in no time flat... at least until the next episode five to seven years down the road.

Many of today’s buyers probably aren’t familiar with the “it’s better to look good than to feel good” quote made famous in sketch and song by comedian Billy Crystal’s character of Fernando, which became a media sensation in the mid-1980s.

Having recently come across one of the skits at a time when a couple friends came to me for advice about what to buy, it started me thinking about what really is more important to the car buyer – good looks or good engineering? The two aren’t mutually exclusive, and there are fewer and fewer cars out there that have one without the other, but they do exist.

My friends need to find vehicles right now and since they can only afford used vehicles, they wondered to me about the reliability of various vehicles several years old. I gave them my opinion on their inquiries but also offered the opinion of good, low priced current model-year vehicles.

In both cases, the vehicles in question were past favourites, so I had few bad things to say about them, but my one main caveat was that in both cases, these cars were pushing 10 years of age, and were therefore bound to be showing their age.

Wouldn’t they rather have new vehicles, that could be leased or financed fairly affordably and whose mechanicals would be covered for the duration of the ownership experience?

In one case, it was a 1999 Pontiac Grand Am with 130,000 km for $2,500, though my friend concluded financing would still have to be arranged. I advised that a 2009 Hyundai Elantra could be had for as little as $250 per month over five years, and be under warranty the entire time. My reasoning was that it would buy time until this friend’s financial situation improved and reliable transportation wouldn’t be a constant worry.

The answer back was that as attractive as I made it sound, this person wouldn’t enjoy driving a car in which she wouldn’t be happy being seen.

A similar scenario played out over a 2000 Camry, for which I have nothing but praise. In this case, the vehicle had some 140,000 km on the odo and was going for $14,000. I told my friend that for basically the same price, he could get a 2009 Kia Rio that came with a five year warranty, which means very little outlay for maintenance for the duration of ownership. However, he decided to take his chances on the 10 year old car for his 120km round-trip commute.

I have no reason for pushing Hyundai products, except that in these two cases, the purchases come with low price tags and warranty coverage for the entire time the vehicle is residing with you. It buys time until the financial situation improves and then they might be able to buy something attractive to them, while not having to worry about major repairs that might become an issue with high-mileage vehicles such as these.

Apparently, though, good looks and badge prestige still trump peace-of-mind motoring.

Are you one of those people who think that all the “aids” in vehicles are bad things?

We have braking and acceleration aids meant to overcome low-traction problems we may encounter; we have cruise control that makes sure we don’t get too close to the vehicle ahead of us; stuff to make sure we don’t go downhill too fast and don’t roll back on uphills; we even have systems that nudge us back to driving if we start falling asleep.

Some things are arguably bad because they take the enjoyment out of driving, while others are deemed detrimental to our paying attention at the wheel.

Heck … why should Mr. Volvo driver be prosecuted for texting at the wheel in crawling rush-hour traffic when his XC60 will stop itself if it comes within three feet of the car in front?

The reality is that we are distracted at the wheel; that is the constant. The anomaly would be the driver who isn’t distracted by something … anything.

He/she doesn’t exist. AND, it has always been thus; it’s just that today, we have more things to distract us – from on-board readouts on how much fuel we’re using, to programmable highway signs that tell us two lanes ahead are blocked, to mental notes that we have to stop to pick up milk, bread and something else … what the heck was it again?

Don’t bother claiming you see examples of driver distraction every day yet you are never distracted because you’re wrong; you are distracted every day. It could be momentarily or for a long time, but all drivers are distracted at some time everyday on every trip and the best we can hope for is to compensate for the results of distractions.

We look over our shoulders to make sure there aren’t cars in the “blind spots” and are temporarily distracted from the road ahead. That’s why we have a mirror on each side of the vehicle (set correctly, they can compensate for shoulder checks) and blind spot warnings to get us to halt our lane changes.

We look down to check what highway exit we’re supposed to take and our vehicles start drifting in the direction we are looking. That’s why we have lane departure warnings that read the lines on the pavement and keep us on the straight and narrow.

Does that mean we shouldn’t try to remove the distractions themselves?

No, but we should be aware that there are other forms of distraction ready to take the places of those we’ve removed, simply because we’ll have more time for distraction at the wheel now that we aren’t distracted by our cell phones or our navigation systems.

First off, let me just apologize for the statement in the Mustang story about it blowing the doors off an M3. I got caught up in the moment and broke one of my Cardinal rules, which is not to compare cars against those to which they don’t compare.

Though racers like Scotty Maxwell, who race one against the other almost every weekend, might offer a different real world opinion, on paper the new M3 offers up 100 more horses while giving up only 30 lb.-ft. of torque and 76 kg.

And honestly, I should have known better because the M3 is one of my favourite cars ever, and it gets stronger with each new generation.

Sorry; I messed up and I’ll understand completely if BMW forces me to drive the new M3 models (it comes in sedan and convertible, in addition to the traditional coupe) over and over and over again, until I get it right …


***

Speaking of messing up, am I the only one who thinks GM has learned nothing over the past year with the latest announcement that it was resurrecting the Regal name on a midsized sedan?

The new car will be built in Oshawa, Ont. (yea!) and will be based on the same architecture as the new for 2010 LaCrosse (formerly Allure), but hasn’t GM been over this before? Isn’t this the kind of duplication that started the company’s fall from profitability over the past five years?

When Buick introduced Regal in 1973, it resurrected the Century name on a less luxurious version. The two were basically undistinguishable until you got up really close. Now, apparently, Regal is going to play Century to LaCrosse’s Regal in the “new” GM.

You’d think somebody would have looked at the past and said “maybe we shouldn’t do that; let’s just make a value conscious LaCrosse trim level instead”; or even if they don’t have somebody in the new company who can remember that far back, look at the recent Ford Five Hundred/Taurus or Rabbit/Golf whoop-de-whoops.

What is that saying about learning from history?

If you learn nothing else from this, learn that you don’t just give up on a nameplate because you want to try something different. It’s like the distinction between fad and fashion.

I know we’ve touched on the subject of selfishness before but what is it about road signs that have some drivers thinking they’re general guidelines that don’t apply to them, rather than rules of the road?

Or are we faced with so many rules and regulations that being a scofflaw is not really that big a deal anymore?

Or perhaps it’s that “nothing’s illegal if you don’t get caught” mentality.

Top of the list are the people who turn left out of some mall and service station parking lots despite the facts that (a) there are various signs of symbols or text, saying that turning left is not allowed and (b) the exit islands and pavement direction kind of steer you in the direction in which you’re supposed to go.

Yet, there are still people who will stop at the exit, inconveniencing all others behind them, waiting for a break in traffic in the direction in which they want to go just so they can perform their illegal turn. And usually, there is a light-controlled exit located within spitting distance, at which you can turn in whichever direction you may want.

The same sort of applies to streets that are not open to left turns during rush hour traffic. Usually you can get away with screwing up traffic behind you in order to turn left if it’s say within five minutes of the end of the prohibited time, but I’ll argue that 15 minutes before is not “close enough”.

And while we’re at it, putting on your turn signal or four way flashers, is not a free pass to stop at “no standing” zones. No Standing means you keep moving …

Taxis are notoriously bad for this behaviour, especially when dropping off a fare. They also seem to have the right of way when crossing two or three lanes in order to pick up a fare, or pulling a U-turn in busy traffic in order to swing back the other way to pick somebody up. And it’s apparently better if you have to pull a three point turn because then you’re sure to block the way of any competitors coming the other way and might otherwise beat you to the punch.

Now in many instances, pulling a U-turn is not illegal, unless it’s signed, but again that doesn’t seem to apply to all motorists … only to the ones who aren’t doing it.

These days, motorists are dealing with a lot of extra things we didn’t have to deal with even a decade ago, and with more and more of us on the road it becomes really essential that all of us act in a civil way to insure we all get where we are going quickly and safely (and no, the two terms aren’t mutually exclusive).