WomanOnWheels.ca

This is an Aston Martin?

This is an Aston Martin. Well, it might be soon, if all goes according to plan.

The car shown here is actually the Toyota iQ, a subcompact the company sells in Japan and Europe. But Aston Martin -- and this is not a joke -- has produced a concept vehicle from it, which it calls the Cygnet.

According to the company, should the project go ahead, Aston Martin will sell a luxury version of this little machine, "akin to an exclusive tender to a luxury yacht," according to the CEO.

If ever you needed proof that the auto world's been turned on its head, I don't think you can do any better than this.

Oh, the irony ...

I was writing up some specs for a buyer's guide yesterday, and noticed that General Motors has discontinued an exterior paint color called Blue Chip ...

Now it's special glass for California ...

I never thought I'd say this, but from an environmental standpoint, I feel a bit sorry for the automakers.

The state of California has become the environmental hotbed, setting mandates that have required companies to produce vehicles that meet specifications unique to the state. I'm sure every car company breathed a long sigh of relief when the U.S. federal government finally agreed that California's fuel and emissions standards would apply everywhere. As one automaker told me, "We'll meet whatever you want -- just give us one number for everybody."

And just when the playing field was equal again, California looked at glass. So starting in 2012, all new vehicles sold in the state must have window glass that reflects at least 45% of the sun's energy. And by 2016, the glass must reflect 60% of heat-producing rays. The theory is that cars will be cooler, air conditioning won't have to work as hard, and fuel use and emissions will benefit.

Which means that, once again, automakers will have to outfit vehicles specifically for California. And the state estimates that the cost for the windows will average $70 for the 2012 standard, and $250 for the 2016 standard. It's expected that the annual gasoline savings will be $16 and $20 a year respectively.

That's a lot of money to add to the price of a car, and I wonder where it's all going to stop. In the U.S., cars will now have to have airbags, vehicle stability control, anti-lock brakes and tire pressure monitoring systems by law. And yet, buyers still flock to vehicles that start around $10,000, because that's all they have to spend.

It's not going to be California's mandates that help clean the air; it's going to be the fact that no one will be able to afford to drive. And in a state that was developed primarily around single-occupancy vehicles, how will the less-well-off ever get around?

Never mind war bonds -- buy a car!

In the news today: a controversial "Cash for Clunkers" bill is heading closer to becoming law in the United States. Under the program, drivers who trade in an older vehicle to be recycled will receive a voucher worth up to $4,500 to buy a new vehicle.

The plan is intended to be twofold: first, it gets people buying new cars, and second, it's meant to retire higher-polluting vehicles and replace them with cleaner, more fuel-efficient ones.

Fine and good. But what tickled my funny bone is that the bill is part of a larger $106 billion wartime spending bill. Ah, how times have changed. In World War II, car factories were shut down, tires and gasoline were rationed, and almost no one could buy a new car for the duration. In these New War Times, the government's not only encouraging you to spend for a new one, it'll help share the cost!

After the rebound: who's left to buy anything?

In the news today, a new report suggestions that Canada's auto parts manufacturers will lose money in 2009, but will start to turn a profit in 2010, and should be back up to full speed, money-wise, by 2013. This will all come about due to some major structural changes, including shedding 36,000 jobs in 2009.

Read that slowly. Thirty-six thousand jobs.

Along with making more profit because they don't have to pay so many of those pesky wages, Canada's auto parts manufacturers will come back to the brink due to the anticipated rebound in car sales, according to the report.

But every time I turn around, there's a press release telling me how many jobs are being shed in the name of returning to viability. A few hundred here, a couple of thousand there, 36,000 in this particular release.

There's no question that many -- perhaps most -- companies in the auto industry have been overstaffed for many years, back when no one thought the gravy boat would ever run dry. But when your profitability depends on massive numbers of people buying items that can cost a year's salary or more, and you've taken away their jobs, well, just who is left to buy your product?

General Motors: the new McDonald's of the car world?

I was out for a walk with my Other Half today, and we got to discussing the future of the car industry. (Well, what do other couples talk about?) And when it came to what might happen to General Motors, the company that came to mind was McDonald's.

Okay, some background. Much of the bailout money is dependent on General Motors (and Chrysler) concentrating on hybrids and small, fuel-efficient cars. And I don't think that's necessarily very smart. Letter-writers and "green" politicians want auto companies to build mostly hybrids and tiny cars. The problem is that the public isn't all that keen on buying them, especially in the U.S., where the sales numbers really matter. Hybrid vehicles have never held more than 4% of the American new-vehicle market. And subcompact cars don't come anywhere near the top ten in the U.S.; even luxury cars outsell them. It's great to look green, but not if it puts you in the red.

Many of the major automakers are famous for something, even if it's not exclusive to that brand. Most buyers equate Volvo with safety, even though other companies now make vehicles that are just as safe. Toyota's all about hybrids, in spite of the Tundra and Sequoia. And General Motors, no matter what its woes, makes some vehicles that people still buy in droves and which return a decent profit: pickup trucks, Suburbans, and other assorted SUVs.

Hence the McDonald's analogy. Sure, in an effort to put on a "healthy" face, McDonald's plays up its salads and wraps. And what do most people do? Look right past them, and continue to order the Big Mac, large fries and keg-o-cola.

And maybe that's what will happen with General Motors. It'll make hybrids and small cars, and it will sell some of them and put on the green face, while it stays afloat with the pickup trucks and SUVs that Americans are buying. And maybe it isn't the best thing for the planet right now, but a country full of idled plants, closed dealerships and people with no jobs isn't such a grand idea, either.

Keep it simple ...

Every now and again, something comes along that's so simple, so straightforward, and yet so important, that it just boggles when you realize that no one thought of it before. This time around, it's the Checkpoint.

It's a piece of plastic, three inches long, and it fits over the wheel nut on a truck tire. The first time I saw some of them on a truck, I thought they were purely decorative, like little neon-colored flags.

But they're not. Rather, loose wheel nuts are a serious problem on any vehicle, but especially on one this big. And while I'm sure engineers have been working on sensors and computers to tackle the problem, someone got the bright idea to stick a little plastic flag on each wheel nut, and if the point of the flag isn't pointing in exactly the same direction it was yesterday, then that wheel nut has backed off.

Simple bloody genius.

Stability control: Safety feature, or just part of the engine?

Now here's an interesting thing. Because I compile an annual automotive Buyer's Guide, I have to check every standard and available feature on every model from every automaker.

The automakers generally divide the lists into sections: exterior, interior, engine and transmission, tires and wheels, audio, and safety. Without fail, the safety list includes such things as airbags, anti-theft alarms, rear child locks, three-point belts, active head restraints and child seat anchors.

But here's an odd thing. While I've never made up a definitive list, I have noticed a bit of a pattern. It seems that if electronic stability control and traction control are standard equipment on the vehicle, these are listed under the safety items. But if they're optional, then likely as not, they're found in the engine and transmission list. Which is not exactly where I'd expect them to be. Hmmm. You don't think the auto company wants us to look at the long list of safety features and realize that we have to pay extra for stability control ... do you?

The best-selling car of 2008: Cheap and plastic!

What outsold the top-ranked Toyota Camry and Honda Accord in the U.S. in 2008? What would be among the top 20 all-time best-selling cars in the world, ahead of the BMW 3 Series? Why, it's this little number here, the Little Tikes Cozy Coupe.

It has some auto heritage of its own: it was designed by Jim Mariol, who previously worked on designs at Chrysler. And from humble beginnings in Macedonia, Ohio thirty years ago, the Cozy Coupe went on to sell more than 10 million units.

For that, it's being enshrined in the Crawford Auto-Aviation Museum in Ohio this month, with one of the first 1979 models and the newest 30th Anniversary Edition going on display. And in a world of offshore toy production, the Cozy Coupe still comes off the assembly line in Hudson, Ohio, one per minute, every minute of the day, 50 weeks a year.

GM: Kick it when it's down

So now it's official: GM has filed for bankruptcy protection. I knew it was coming, and yet it's still the news I never thought I'd hear.

I just took back the new Camaro today, after test-driving it for a week. And I have to admit, what really surprised me was the frequently negative reaction it got. Not because of what it is, because it's a really nice ride overall, but because of the company that builds it. I can't believe how many people complained about minor quibbles, and not because it mattered to them, but because it gave them an opportunity to slam General Motors.

I took it to a couple of cruise nights, and I parked it alongside a new Challenger and Mustang. I expected the usual cold shoulder from the Mopar and Ford guys, although you could tell that in an odd way, they were glad to see it, as if the triumvirate was once again intact. But people were coming up to it -- in many cases, people who drive GM cars, or work for GM, since the Camaro is built where I live -- and picking it apart. The grille's too big. The lights are too small. The windows are this, the hood is that, the seats are this. And while it's very difficult to describe their tone, it was obvious they weren't picking out what they saw as flaws on the vehicle. Rather, they just needed to complain about something.

One guy said GM had taken too long to bring it to market, and that's what was wrong with it. The next guy said they'd rushed it into production, and that's what was wrong with it. 

I took it to the gas station this morning. One man there, a former employee at the now-defunct truck plant, told me he'd been thinking about getting one. Another fellow, filling up a GM minivan, yelled over, "There's been two recalls on it already! My daughter works there! She says there's been two recalls on it already!"

I guess what I really don't understand is this need to kick the underdog. You don't like the Camaro, you don't like the Camaro -- that's fine. But in my week with it, I didn't hear from anyone who truly didn't like the Camaro. Instead, I heard from people who just needed to pick it apart, for whatever reason.

GM certainly has done a lot of things wrong. It wouldn't be headline news this morning about its bankruptcy if it hadn't. And yet, when the company does something right, no one will accept that. I've brought home some GM vehicles that deserved the slamming they got, but more recently, I've brought home a lot of them that can stand against the best of the competition. And always, someone will pick on whatever tiny fault they can find to drag down the whole car, because they can't allow anyone to think that maybe this time, the underdog got it right. And that's the part I simply don't understand.