WomanOnWheels.ca

100 million for Chevy's small-block engine

That's the big number today: GM says it has built its 100 millionth small-block engine. What's even more amazing is that while the design is 56 years old - it debuted in the 1955 Chevrolet - it's only been redesigned four times. Yup, the small-block used today is just into its fourth generation.

The original 265-cid engine made 195 horsepower, if you ordered its optional four-barrel carb. The current one used in the Corvette ZR1 makes 638 horsepower.

Those 100 million engines also include crate engines, a few marine and industrial engines that are still based on the original design, and the 4.3-litre V6, which GM says is based on the small-block V8 with a couple of cylinders lopped off.

I drove a long string of Chevy 350 V8 engines throughout the 1970s to the 1990s, in taxicabs and personal cars, and I still have two of them under the hoods of my hot rods. Aside from a few engineering blurps - can you say "305 soft camshaft"? - the small-block was powerful, sweet to drive, and pretty much bulletproof. GM sure did that one right.

The price of driving: Once again, let somebody else fix it

There's a new poll out today, commissioned by Consumer Reports, that asked Americans what they want done about how much it costs them to drive their cars.

I think you can guess what they said. Of those polled, 93% wanted better fuel efficiency in new cars, and 77% said that auto manufacturers should make more efficient cars and the government should increase and enforce the fuel standards. Some 80% want federal fuel efficiency standards that will enforce a national fleet-wide standard of 55 mpg (4.3 L/100 km) by 2025.

Uh huh. Y'know, for a nation that spends most of its time arguing that the government should get out of their lives, it sure goes out of its way to welcome it in when it suits a need. And for a nation that collectively believes that those who aren't as well-off need only pull up their bootstraps a little more, why aren't drivers trying harder?

A great many households would find that their current vehicles would get amazingly better fuel efficiency and lower operating costs without even breathing the word "hybrid." Go out on the highway and see how many drivers fly past you. Watch them accelerate when the light turns green as if there's a checkered flag at stake. Ask them if they know what a tire pressure gauge is. Sit at the drive-through and count the cars idling there. Look at how many automakers have dropped their compact trucks because everyone wants one big enough to have its own zip code. Go out into farmland and watch the developers scrape off the topsoil, and then put in thousands of houses that can't be accessed without a vehicle. Go by the school and see how many parents drive their children three blocks to get there.

The poll also found that 56% are "considering" hybrids or electric cars for their next purchase, and 72% are likely to do so if they're more available over the next 15 years. They say they're also more willing to spend more for a fuel-efficient vehicle.

I say they're lying. Look at a list of the best-selling cars in the U.S., and count the number of compacts and subcompacts on it. You'll probably only need one finger, two at most. There are already vehicles out there that are far more fuel-efficient than the ones Americans are most likely to buy, and most of them cost less. So why aren't these people buying them? And if they won't buy a less-costly small model, why on earth should I believe they'll buy a far more costly small model just because it has an electric motor under the hood?

It comes down to this: Americans (and Canadians) think the government should mandate fuel-efficient cars, and the automakers should build them. The problem is, drivers want other people to actually buy them. Drivers want other people to drive more fuel-efficiently. Well, as long as we wait for other people to make the difference, be prepared to keep pulling out your wallet.

MyFord Touch: Finally, Ford is listening

In the news today: Ford is simplifying MyFord Touch, the touch-screen system introduced last year to control such features as the stereo, navigation, climate and telephone functions. It seems the automaker bowed to complaints about how slow and non-intuititive the Touch can be.

Ever since I first used it, I've thought it should be bundled with a cinderblock and thrown off a cliff - most recently in the Ford Focus. If you just get the "plain" MyFord Touch system, you end up with a screen that requires you to tap the very edges to access anything - tough enough when the vehicle's standing still, and much harder when it's moving - and then page through various computer screens to get to what you want. If you upgrade to the Sony system, you also get tiny spots on a glassy surface that are virtually impossible to hit accurately unless you're driving on an equally glassy road.

And when it's cold, such as when you start the car on a frosty morning, the system takes forever to do anything. You can almost time it by the calendar.

To its credit, Ford is making the changes fairly early in the program (unlike BMW, which took years to admit that the original iDrive wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread). Still, why do automakers - or any electronics company - send out products that aren't easy to figure out in the first place?

I've always said that once any system is designed, be it a stereo, navigation or any other electronic device, the engineers should take it out and give it to everyone in the building who isn't an engineer. If the receptionist, the janitor, the lunchroom servers can't figure out how to make it find an address, play music or set up a phone call, it goes back to the drawing board until they can.

Part of the MyFord Touch remake also includes online tutoring videos showing you how to use it, and training at the dealership level so the staff can tell customers how to work it. Which means it's probably still too complicated. I used to praise Ford to the skies for the big, simple controls it used for functions. That was, unfortunately, too long ago.

You Can, But You Shouldn't ...

A snowplow front end and too much happening on the hood do not a fine Camaro make.

2012 Ford Focus: Beautiful car, but who engineered that transmission?

There are some very good direct shift gearboxes on the market, but this is not one of them. Read all about it in my review on Autos.ca by clicking here.

You Can, But You Shouldn't ...