WomanOnWheels.ca

How It Works: Owners' Manuals

The best-selling book in Canada sold more than 1.9 million copies last year, and it's likely nobody who got one ever read it -- because who opens the owner's manual unless it's an emergency? But reading it cover-to-cover can help you understand your vehicle, including the maintenance that'll make it last longer. Find out more in my "How It Works" column at the National Post (Driving.ca).

Affordable new cars coming for 2020

Sports and supercars make the headlines, but it's the bread-and-butter cars that end up in driveways, and automakers are constantly adding to or improving their portfolios to be sure they will. Here are some of the lower-priced vehicles coming for 2020 in my story at the National Post (Driving.ca).

MSRP, dealer cost, all-in pricing...what do they mean?

Cars have a lot of prices attached to them, from their MSRP, to their options and add-ons, to dealer fees and taxes. What do they all mean? Find out in my story at AutoTrader.ca.

How to negotiate a car deal

You want to pay the least, and the person on the other side of the desk wants you to pay the most. So what do you do? Find out in my story over at AutoTrader.ca.

When's the best time to buy a new car?

There's a "best" month, day, time of day, and even a prime holiday period. If you don't know when they are, check out my story at AutoTRADER.ca.

Should you fix or replace your broken-down ride?

It's always a tough thing to figure out: when do you stop putting repair money into your old car, and trade it in for a new one? I have some advice over at AutoTRADER.ca that might help you out.

2019: New vehicles under $30,000

Although many of us dream of zipping along in ultra-expensive vehicles, it's the "bread-and-butter" cars that make up most of the market. Have a look at what's coming for 2019 under $30,000 in my story at the National Post.

Want a new DeLorean? Only a piece of paper is keeping it from you...

A brand-new version of the iconic stainless-steel sports car is in the works, but a piece of paper from NHTSA is holding it back -- along with any other replica car that might interest you. Find out the rest of the story in my piece over at AutoTRADER.

The History of Auto Shows

Auto shows got their start in North America with the first major one in 1900, and they've been part of the consumer and media scene ever since. What will happen going forward is anyone's guess, but I have a look at where they've been in my "Rearview Mirror" column at the National Post.

Buying a new car? Here's what you will -- and might not -- get

Some auto items have been around long enough that automakers don't advertise them anymore, which doesn't always help you when you're buying a new vehicle. And while some have become mandatory, others are still optional. Will your car have anti-lock brakes, tire pressure monitoring, or disc brakes? Find out what it will or might have in my story at AutoTrader.

Buying an accessible vehicle? Here are some of your options...

While you can get almost anything converted to at least some sort of accessibility, getting the right vehicle for your needs can require expert advice and, in most cases, a fair chunk of change. None of the mainstream automakers convert vehicles themselves, but some offer rebates if you have it done. And there's even one that's purpose-built for wheelchair passengers -- find out more in my story at AutoTRADER.ca.

Buying a car? Here's what to check ...

There are a lot of things to remember when you're buying a car, and you may not always remember to check them all. I have a short list in my story over at the Chicago Tribune.

Extended warranties: What should you know?

If you buy a car, you'll probably be asked if you want an extended warranty. Whether it's a good or bad idea to buy one depends on many factors; read all about it in my Toronto Star story by clicking here.

Check it out: DriveSideways

My friend and colleague James Bergeron puts his thoughts together on his blog, DriveSideways, and it's a great resource for reviews, information and automotive musings. Click here and check it out!

So how do you "Find the Best" car?

With so many cars, so many ratings, so many numbers, how do you compare them? I got a tip on a new website, Find the Best, that's putting together a database that includes such information as horsepower, fuel economy, price and ratings.

It's primarily U.S. information but there's a lot of stuff happening on it. Check it out at Find the Best.

So who makes the most cars? It might surprise you ...

I always figured it was the U.S. that turned out the largest number of new cars each year, but as it turns out, our continent is relatively low on the list. (Keep in mind this doesn't include trucks.)

In 2010, automakers worldwide churned out 58,478,810 cars, according to information from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association. That's a fair number of rides.

The European Union accounted for most of them, at more than 15 million. The second-largest was China, which made almost 13.9 million, a rise of 33.8% over its output in 2009. Third on the list was Japan, at just over 8.3 million.

Next up is South Korea, then Brazil, then India. The United States clocks in at seventh place, making just over 2.7 million in 2010. After that, it's Mexico, Iran, Russia (up 101.6% from 2009, with over 1.2 million cars produced), Canada, Turkey, Thailand, Malaysia, Argentina, and at just over 496,000 cars, Indonesia. Where will your next car come from? These days, it could be just about anywhere.

Old cars and safety: These are the good old days

I'm still getting letters over an opinion piece I wrote in the Toronto Star about how old cars are a lot of fun, but they're nowhere near as safe as the cars built today. The newspaper illustrated my story with pictures from a crash test performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in which it banged up a 1959 Bel Air against a 2009 Malibu to show how far cars had come in the 50 years the IIHS had been around. (You can see the video here.)

What surprised me was how many readers said the test "wasn't fair," because the cars didn't hit precisely head-on. The reality is that the standard is what's known as the "frontal offset," where the cars hit with each vehicle's front quarter at the middle of the other vehicle's hood. It's done this way because this is how most so-called "head-on" collisions occur. The cars don't hit each other directly face-to-face. Rather, one driver veers across the line where he's hit by oncoming traffic, often by drivers who are swerving to avoid him, making the possibility of a straight-on hit even less likely.

The Bel Air's driver probably wouldn't have fared much better in a direct head-on that these readers might have considered to be more in the car's favor anyway. In old cars, it's the "secondary collision" that was often responsible for death or serious injury. Since these cars didn't crumple up, crash force was sent straight into the cabin, where the driver was crushed by or crashed into the interior panels. New cars "disintegrate," as one reader put it, because they're supposed to do that. By crumpling up, they help prevent crash energy from reaching and deforming the cabin.

Fewer people are killed on U.S. roads these days, and it certainly isn't because we're all much better drivers. It's primarily because cars are doing a better job of protecting us.

None of that will probably get through to most of these readers, of course; you stand a better chance standing between a bear and her cubs than you do when you criticize old cars. Hey, I love old cars. I've played with them for almost 30 years now, and as you can see by clicking on the link to the right, I still own a couple. I'm also realistic about how time marches on. A 2009 car is vastly superior, safety-wise, to a 1959. And in 2029, we'll look back and say my goodness, look how far we've come in twenty years.

Small car sales: it ain't the car, it's the fuel

After fears that it might follow companies like Hudson and Studebaker into that good night, General Motors has reported a profit of $1.33 billion. In fact, all of the Big Three seem to be turning around; in Canada in July, sales of domestic nameplates were up 18%, while import nameplates as a whole dropped by 3%.

In the U.S., according to Edmunds.com, it's big trucks that are leading the resurgence -- the vehicles the Big Three do better than anybody else.

It's an inescapable fact: the vehicles people are buying are the vehicles that the letter-writers and the government don't want those companies to make. You can cite gas prices, you can cite greenhouse gas emissions, you can point a finger out to BP's mess in the Gulf, but the fact remains: given a choice, consumers buy big vehicles. And those big vehicles drive the automotive industry's wheel.

The size of vehicles moving off dealer lots is in direct proportion to what's on the gas station sign across the street. Prices go up, little cars go up. Prices go down, little cars go down. And whenever gas prices hike up, the letter-writers bemoan the fact that car companies aren't making enough little cars. I suspect these people have no clue how the auto industry actually works, because I think they seriously believe that auto companies work like the local bakery: white flour's expensive today, we'll make brown bread, and see what's costly tomorrow.

Most of the letter-writers have it backwards. Don't tie the auto industry to the price of gas; tie the price of gas to the auto industry. Why does Europe buy small cars? Because gas is four times what it costs here. If the government were really serious about fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, it wouldn't even be talking to the automakers about what they're going to build. It would be talking to the gasoline companies about what they're going to charge.

See the U.S.A. in your Chevro--oops, Camry ...

In a new report released today, Cars.com says that, for the second year in a row, the Toyota Camry is the "Most American" vehicle on the road, with the Honda Accord close behind.

The site determines how "American" a vehicle is by where it's made, how popular it is with U.S. buyers, and the percentage of its parts -- by cost -- that are made in the U.S. or Canada. (Although the editors are fine with looking north, south doesn't count, and several vehicles are left off the list because they, or a majority of their parts, are produced in Mexico.)

For the record, the ten in order are Camry, Accord, Ford Escape, Ford Focus, Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Odyssey, Dodge Ram 1500 (except for the single cab, made -- horrors! -- by those folks south of Texas), Toyota Tundra, Jeep Wrangler and Toyota Sienna.

Yes, I used to have an "eat your foreign car" sticker on my vehicle, a long time ago, before I learned that vehicles are no longer domestic or foreign. Toyota Corollas and Honda Civics are made not too far from where I live in Ontario; the Chevrolet Aveo comes from Korea. Almost all automakers, be they Japanese, German or Korean, have some sort of a manufacturing presence in North America. And the "domestics" have been shipping components to their North American plants from all over the world for years. Your Ford, GM or Chrysler may have been built here, but it probably contains parts from China, Thailand, Korea, India or anywhere else you can drop your finger on a map.

I believe that countries need a manufacturing base to be healthy, which is why the U.S. and Canada are going steadily downhill, morphing from countries that make goods, into ones that simply retail them. But I also see the big picture, and nothing makes my blood boil faster than someone who waves off "import" companies by saying, "Yes, they make the cars here, but then they send all that money back to a foreign country."

News flash: if you're in Canada, every car company is based in a foreign country. We haven't had a truly Canadian company since about, oh, 1920 or so. Every company is putting money back where it's building the cars, whether it's in wages to employees, investments in the facilities, or business taxes (just don't get me started by whining about government funds used for bailouts -- GM and Chrysler just took the money up front, while other companies quietly accept billions in tax credits from state governments hungry for the jobs). Buy the car that's right for you, and if it's made in a plant near you, all the better for your local economy. They're not sending your money away: they're spending it right where you live, no matter what badge is on the trunk.

Hey, automakers: Think about the big picture!

Isn't that a great car picture? That's my shot of the Volkswagen NCC Concept at the Detroit Auto Show. Which leads me into my rant of the day, and I sure hope the automakers are reading: why is it you folks never think about how we're supposed to take pictures of your car?

For those who have never seen how we cover an auto show, it's like this. Each company has a stage, where it brings out the latest-and-greatest models so we can all get photos and videos of it being displayed. Naturally, the best shots are from straight across from the stage, but there are hundreds of photographers, videographers and journalists, and only so much space in which to put them. Most of us are to the left or the right of the stage, because that's the only thing that's left. And unfortunately, in their infinite wisdom, the folks who design these so-called "reveals" don't seem to realize this.

When I got to the Volkswagen booth, all of the full-frontal spaces were taken, and so I managed to get front-row at the very edge of the stage, figuring I'd get a perfect shot of the side view when the car drove out. But then Volkswagen revealed its strategy: it would bring out dancers, who would move panels around to "frame" the car from straight on. If you were one of the lucky minority standing directly opposite the car, you got your shot. If you were anywhere else, you got a version of my photo.

It isn't just props. When the car comes out, someone stands beside it to describe the vehicle. But rather than think 180-degrees, he thinks straight-on, and so he inevitably positions himself beside one of the front fenders, and stays there. That's fine if you're on the side he's not. If you gambled and picked the wrong side, you simply can't get a shot of the car.

Automakers, listen up: think full circle. Think about how all of us are going to get a shot of your car. If you want props, put them well behind our field of vision. If you're going to stand on stage, move around the car halfway through your presentation, so the other side of the room can get a clear shot too. And if you absolutely have to put all your executives up front -- and I can't figure out why, since they've already seen the vehicle, and they're taking up spots where we could put more journalists in prime locations -- then brief them on the fact that several hundred media people are standing behind them trying to get shots, and perhaps they could refrain from doing anything to block our cameras.

We're just trying to help sell your car for you. Please, give some thought to what it takes for us to do that.

Some Automotive Musings ...

Over the years, through more cars than I can count, I've noticed many little things. For no reason other than because they popped into my head, I've tossed them all together here. See what you think.

- I suspect that many vehicles have numerous cubbies primarily for the sake of the salesman, especially if they're in the back of hatchbacks. I'm talking about the tiny bins hidden between the main under-floor bin and the back of the wheel well, or pockets in the liftgate, or the little storage areas you uncover when you pull a plastic panel off the cargo area's side. I don't believe anybody actually puts stuff in them. Rather, when the salesman's walking you around the vehicle in the showroom, it's one more thing he can uncover, to oohs and aahs of potential customers who marvel at how many hidden compartments this thing actually has.

- I think tire pressure monitoring systems, or TPMS, are among the most unnecessary auto technologies thrust upon us. I've had at least a half-dozen false warnings due to changes in temperature so far this winter. They let drivers believe that it isn't necessary to check their tires, because "the car will tell me" -- even though the systems are designed to warn at a level that may be dangerously low. That level was set when the government listened to the automakers, who wanted one simple percentage across the board, and not the tire manufacturers, who wanted individual warnings for vehicle and tire combinations based on safe pressure. The U.S. government has mandated TPMS. Transport Canada says it won't unless the systems are proven worthwhile. So far, we don't have TPMS up here. What does that tell you?

- Artico leather, Alcantara suede, Escaine leather -- how fancy they all sound. I wonder when the auto brochure writers will figure out that we know they're fake cowhide.

- And am I the only one who firmly believes that the vast majority of "spy shots" -- upcoming models supposedly snapped by photographers who somehow gained access to the vehicles at test tracks or hidden locations -- are actually released by the automakers themselves? C'mon, folks, there's no way on earth the carmakers are dumb enough to let the paparazzi in on it if they really meant to keep it quiet.

Electronic stability control: Now in Canada

The Canadian government has announced that, as in the U.S., electronic stability control will be mandatory on all new vehicles as of August 2011. Transport Canada says that vehicles so equipped are involved in fewer severe collisions involving loss of control.*

This means that anti-lock brakes will also be standard, along with airbags, new roof standards, and in the U.S., tire pressure monitoring systems. I fully expect curtain airbags and active head restraints to be added in future, too.

Our roads won't be safer because cars are equipped with all these systems. Our roads will be safer because no one will be able to afford a car anymore, and there won't be as many people actually driving.

*And all of this is after-the-fact, because the governments will never mandate the two things that would truly make a huge dent in the number of vehicle collisions and fatalities -- real driver training with periodic re-testing, and properly-maintained, season-specific tires.

Who really determines an automaker's fate ...

   I was talking to a woman yesterday who asked my opinion on what vehicle she should buy. When I mentioned a model, she said she'd never buy a domestic. Why not? She wasn't happy with the dealer she'd encountered.

Which made me realize something very vital. An auto company spends years and millions of dollars designing a vehicle. It spends many more millions getting it onto the assembly line, and then spends again to launch and advertise it. The CEO poses beside it at the auto shows, the publicists woo the media with it, and men and women toil on the assembly line to build it.

And then it all comes down to the guy on the other side of the desk at the dealership.

I worked in dealerships, and I can tell you this: there are some really good, really dedicated people out there who genuinely feel a calling, and who truly have the customer's interests at heart. And there are more than a few who couldn't make a go of it selling computers or lawnmowers or whatever, and so they answered an ad, spent a week learning the ropes, and then got sent out to deal with the public.

For all the public sneers at auto salesmen, selling cars is not a cushy job. There are very long hours involved. You've got pressure from the customers, pressure from the sales manager, pressure from the dealer principal. You have to deal with tire-kickers and people who don't think the company should make a penny of profit on the car. And even though you've been behind your desk for ten hours that day, if you don't sell a car, you don't take home any money.

And yet, that car salesman, whether he's good or bad, is the auto company. If he screws up badly, never mind that the customer isn't coming back to the dealer again; he or she may never come back to the brand at all.

No matter how big the auto company is, no matter how much they pay the CEO, no matter how many people work for it, it all comes down to this: all that time, all that engineering, all that design, all that assembly, and the final spokesman for the brand is a guy who doesn't even work for the company itself, and who really just wants you to buy the car so he can go the hell home to his family.

New-car buyers: Keep it simple, keep it cheap

Earlier this week, research firm AutoPacific released the results of an interesting new survey. When asked if they would consider buying a Chinese car, even without knowing the specific brand or vehicle, 15% of U.S. respondents said they would. Another 11% said they'd consider one from India. What makes that extremely surprising is that only 16% said they'd consider a vehicle from Korea, and that country's been selling cars in North America for 25 years.

This is what many of us in the auto review field, and even those in the business of building and selling cars, don't always comprehend: the way most buyers think. To us, because we're enthusiasts, the important stuff includes horsepower, handling, ride quality, panel gaps, and features and options. To the average consumer, it's price, reliability, fuel economy, and maybe airbags and stability control. Period.

My sister-in-law just traded in her beat-up, 17-year-old minivan, and only because repairing the air conditioning was a major expense. She went into the dealer with three demands: a/c, good price, hatchback. That's it. She didn't even realize the gearshift surround hadn't been completely snapped into place until I pointed it out and fixed it. And any reviewer or auto exec who smirks at that is completely out of touch with most of the buying public.

Just as I have no more interest in my computer than I want it to boot up every time, connect seamlessly to the Internet, and not eat my work, the vast majority of car owners just want something that starts every time, stops when they hit the brakes, plays music, blows hot and cold air, and goes into the shop as little as possible, at a price they can afford.

The AutoPacific survey found that most respondents ranked reliability and durability highest, and had little interest in vehicle dynamics such as braking, acceleration, and handling. We in the business pick apart the Chinese cars at the auto show, and wonder if they'll ever make inroads over here. Well, we said that about the Korean cars, too, and look what happened. The global market is coming. Underestimate the new imports and overestimate the average customer at your own risk.

How do you destroy an engine? The government knows!

How do you destroy an engine? Well, if you're the U.S. government, you use sodium silicate.

As you're no doubt aware, the U.S. has passed a "cash for clunkers" law that will give rebates to people who trade in old, thirsty vehicles and buy new, fuel-efficient ones. Since the whole idea is to get these old cars out of circulation, the program includes recycling them. But if someone takes that old engine out of the car and continues to use it, the whole point of the program is lost.

According to the website Cash For Clunkers, car dealers taking in these old vehicles will have to give each car a "lethal injection" in order to render it permanently inoperable. It seems that NHTSA wrestled with several options -- after a bit of whining in its final ruling that Congress never gave a definition of an "engine block" (follow that link to page 38) -- including parting out the engine components, destroying the oil filter threads, drilling a hole in the block, and running the engine without oil.

Finally, it determined that car dealers must do the equivalent of an oil change, but after draining the block, they add two quarts of sodium silicate, at a cost of about $7.00, and run the engine until the stuff dries up inside.

The stuff you learn on the Internet. Perhaps, as the website suggests, we should be buying shares in sodium silicate companies: it sounds like it's about to take off.

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!

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.

Europe and China collaborate on cars ... hmmm.

In the news today: the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA) and the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) have signed a cooperation agreement.

According to the press release, the agreement will allow both sides "to exchange information on automotive industry trends in China and Europe and, particularly in China, to work more systematically on a coordinated approach regarding regulatory developments of common concern."

Now, that can mean a lot of things, but the word that comes to my mind is homologation. I'm thinking across-the-board standards that could result in a few new developments. Chinese cars that could be exported and sold in Europe. European-brand cars that could be built in China and then sold in Europe. And since you can buy a European-built car in North America, could the ultimate step be that not only will all of our T-shirts and kitchen goods and toys sold in Canada be made in China, but all of our cars, as well?

People used to ask if cars made in China would ever come to Canada. The question now is -- when?

Obama buys some cars: the Big Three get some cash

In one of the most sensible plans I've heard in a long time, Barack Obama has announced that the U.S. government will buy about 17,600 vehicles from American auto companies for its fleet. It'll cost about $285 million, taken from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The vehicles will come from GM, Ford and Chrysler, and will be purchased by June 1, 2009. The purchase will also include 2,500 hybrid sedans, which will be ordered by April 15. There's also $15 million dedicated to advanced technologies, including CNG and hybrid buses, and all-electric vehicles, with orders placed by September 30.

According to the press release, each vehicle purchased under the plan must have a better fuel economy than the vehicle it replaces, with an overall goal of a 10% improvement in fuel efficiency for the entire procurement.

It's sensible because you can throw all the money you want at a company -- no matter what it makes -- and it won't do any good if there are no buyers for the product it's selling. And cars, being such big-ticket items, are very hard to move off the lots when people lose their jobs, or aren't sure if they're next in line. It's going to take a lot more than 17,600 vehicles to turn this all around, but it's a step in the right direction.

Europe: Observations and comments

I've just returned from a "busman's holiday" in Munich, where I was supposed to be on vacation. But that never happens, of course, because there is always a story around the corner.

Unlike many of my journalist colleagues, I don't travel much outside of my own continent, and this was only my second trip to Europe, which is probably why I was so wide-eyed. It'll all make its way into a newspaper story soon enough, but here are some of my observations:

- Unlike here, diesel is still cheaper than gasoline in Europe, but that's all relative. Keep in mind that a Euro was about $1.50 Canadian at the time when you look at the prices in the photo. Even so, I saw more large cars than I expected in Munich, which is probably due to that city's relative wealth. But small vehicles still make up the majority, including delivery vehicles which are far more compact than the big trucks we use in the cities here. The Ford Transit Connect can't get here fast enough.

- Munich drivers drive. They don't talk on cell phones, drink coffee, eat hamburgers, put on makeup, read the newspaper or play with the stereo when they're piloting cars. In nine days, I saw two -- count 'em, two -- drivers talking into phones. Both of them were parking at the time, and both of them did a terrible job of it. I also didn't see any collisions, didn't see any gridlock-blocked intersections, didn't see anyone run a red light, and saw very few cars with any dents in them. Are European drivers perfect? Of course not. But from what I saw, they're sure a hell of a lot better than what we have over here.

- The cops drive BMWs and Mercedes. With stick shifts, if the model comes with one. As do the taxi drivers.

- Bicycles aren't children's toys or exercise machines, they are serious transportation. That picture at the top is of one of the myriad bicycle lanes in the city. Where the streets are large enough, there are three separate areas: cars on the asphalt, bicycles on a paved section of the sidewalk nearest to the road, and pedestrians on the inside of the sidewalk. (If you forget while walking and meander onto the bike lane, be prepared for the ringing bells; they don't stop for you or go around, because it's your responsibility to move.) On the largest streets, there's an electric tram right-of-way in the centre as well. No doubt because they're respected as road users, cyclists obey the rules: they stop for red lights, they stay off the pedestrian area, and they don't drive wherever it suits them -- from sidewalk to curb to turn lane to sidewalk -- as cyclists so often do here. Each bicycle has a light and a bell, and they use them.

- Germans may grumble about their public transit system, but by North American standards, it's incredible, with above-ground and underground city trains, electric trams, buses, and a train system that connects cities across the country. I got off the plane, got onto a train in the airport, and was in the city center thirty minutes later, at a cost of nine Euros. Try doing that from Pearson International to Union Station in Toronto, which is the equivalent; you're looking at two subway trains and a bus.

- Urban density also plays a part; I didn't see any single-family houses anywhere in the city center. Apartment buildings have stores and offices on their lower floors. People walk. Nowhere, even on the smallest side alleys, was I ever the only person on the street.

- And no wonder they walk. I ordered a salad in a restaurant; it turned out to be a dozen slices of sausage, topped with onions, dressing, and half a lettuce leaf, and it came with a giant pretzel. In for a penny, as they say, and of course I ordered a good German beer alongside. Hey, I wasn't driving.

Premium fuel: yes or no?

This was the sight that greeted me at the gas pump today when I filled up a vehicle. Fortunately, my ride called for 87 octane, which was "only" $1.25 per litre. The premium stuff represented a jump of 12 cents a litre. That would have added about eight bucks to my total.

The Internet's awash in articles on whether most cars really need premium. Few will come out and actually say you can run the lower-grade stuff, liability being what it is, but the general consensus seems to be that if it isn't turbo- or supercharged, the lower grade should see you through.

Things were different way back when, before cars had computerized fuel management systems and knock sensors, and using a lower grade could damage a higher-performance engine. Today's cars can make up the difference by dialing back a little, which shouldn't be too much of an issue to the average driver. I don't know about you, but I doubt I'd be able to tell if my car was producing 300 horsepower instead of 302.

I have another unproven pet theory, and it has to do with prestige and image. Many of the premium-brand manufacturers call for high-test across their entire product lines, regardless of engine size or horsepower. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but I wonder if the thinking is that premium fuel = premium car ... and a car that takes "regular" fuel is, well, just a regular vehicle. In other words, it ain't the car that needs the expensive fuel, but the owner's ego.

Ford and the CAW: the start of something new?

In the news today: Ford and the Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW) have come to an agreement on a new three-year contract. It's still subject to ratification by the members, of course, but the big news is that this all happened more than four months before the contract is set to expire.

I don't pretend to know the full story on either side, but I hope that's a sign that perhaps everyone might start to work together for a common goal that will benefit every community that depends on the auto industry to make its living.

I've never worked for a union, but I certainly know people who do, and I know enough to have some opinions. I think unions have lost the primary importance they held in their earliest days, back when companies (and not just automakers) treated workers as something to be chewed up and spat out. I also think unions can get too greedy for their own good, and that some people can take advantage of that. So a little toning down on both sides, a little standing firm here and there -- it's a good thing.

I think the public, by and large, paints a picture of autoworkers that isn't entirely fair, and I think that further, it's a kneejerk reaction that needs to be examined. Yes, autoworkers make good money, for jobs that generally don't require a great deal of education or skill. Having done just a little bit of repetitive labour, I can say that you're not paying them for the skill, but for the fact that they stand there day after day, putting the same bolts into the same holes. There's a very high rate of repetitive injury on the job, and beyond that, it's just an unpleasant way to make a living. Yes, there are much worse jobs out there. That doesn't make these jobs any better, any more than my broken leg stops hurting just because I meet someone who broke both legs and one arm.

But to go beyond that, we're a society, and society needs to remember the greater good. If you think autoworkers are overpaid, consider how much someone making $30 an hour pays in taxes. Those taxes go into infrastructure, police, schools, fire protection, parks, social programs, health care, and all the other local and national benefits that we take for granted. Now -- do you want your neighborhood financed by people making $30 an hour, or by someone whose job consists of "would you like fries with that"?

As for the autoworkers -- backing off a little in some areas might help keep these golden geese laying their eggs a bit longer. At $30 an hour, you can afford to pay more than 35 cents co-pay for each drug prescription, for example.

I don't know the specifics of the Ford agreement, which will be kept confidential until it's ratified. It should be interesting, though, to see what was hammered out four months in advance, as opposed to four hours before the strike deadline. Times are tough, and it's going to be a long time before things get better in the domestic auto industry. Maybe, though, this is the beginning.

Our gasoline situation: who's to blame?

I paid $1.226 for a litre of 87-octane gasoline yesterday. And I know it's only going to get worse. If we don't see $1.40 by the height of the summer, I'll be very surprised.

And yet, in response to the headline in my newspaper today -- GM will eliminate another shift at its truck plant, here in the town where I live -- there is shock and anger. That's understandable, because this will have an effect from the assembly line right down to the checkout clerk at the grocery store. But really, didn't anyone see this coming?

I wasn't old enough at the time to understand all of the complicated politics behind it, but I do remember the OPEC crisis of 1973. I recall seeing the news reports of the lineups, the alternate days, the stations out of gas. Back then, the Big Three were almost exclusively making large cars, and people laughed at those who bought the weird little Japanese cars. Once the crisis hit, they weren't laughing anymore, and that was the beginning of Japan's surge into the North American market. By the time the Big Three got into smaller cars, it was too late to push them back (and the fact that the cars Detroit built were crap didn't help, either).

But as we all know, history is in the past, and slowly, the cars got bigger again. This time around, though, both domestics and imports played the game. Each next-generation model was bigger, heavier and more powerful than the one it replaced, until the model got so bloated that it didn't fit into the segment anymore and the company had to introduce an all-new one to slot under it.

All of the automakers are hooked on the huge profits SUVs provide for them, and they've done a good job of convincing people they need them to be safe, be stylish, and be able to carry seven people (even though they probably never will). The buyer has lapped it up, and only now is realizing that not enough other people are buying small cars/taking transit/conserving energy so there will be enough left over to fuel the barges. And the automakers then justify it by saying that they're only giving the buyers what they want. Well, I want a panda-bear rug for my living room, too, but there's something about the "greater good" that prevents it.

Still, after having pointed fingers (and, in true North American style, not at myself), the question remains: can Detroit, and now Japan and Korea, react swiftly enough to this fuel crisis to bring appropriate cars to market in time? And when they do, and it all dies down, and everyone's in a smaller vehicle, will the next generations of those models stray from their diet, and start the cycle all over again?

Never underestimate a cowboy ...

I was going through some pictures and came across this, and thought, hey, there's a story within a story. This was during the launch of the updated 2008 BMW 5 Series. The company put a group of journalists into the cars in Las Vegas, and we drove them to Monterey, California.

That's a lot longer than the average press trip, and my deadline fell smack in the middle of it. The problem is that I write in linear fashion: if I don't have the first line, I can't write the story. And try as I might, I didn't have a first line. The clock was ticking, and I was desperately trying to come up with something. Nothing sounded right; nothing worked. It was getting on for three o'clock, and I had to have the story done that night.

Well, every now and again, the world just turns in the right direction for you. BMW had turned the trip into a bit of a scavenger hunt, and we had to stop at a general store in the middle of nowhere. Other than the general heading of "California", I had no idea where we were. We hadn't seen any living thing other than cattle for two hours. Why this store even existed was beyond us, but we pulled in, and that's when I noticed the beat-up old Ford pickup across the road. A cowboy got out, as lean and dry and weathered as a Joshua tree, and he came over and looked at my German-made machine. I fully expected him to ask what type of car it was.

"Nice car," he said.

"Thanks," I said.

He looked at it, and then drawled through a walrus moustache, "That must be a brand-new one. The ones last year didn't have them headlights."

(You can read the whole thing here.)

How about giving us what we really want?

I noticed a press release from Chrysler yesterday. In the US, the company is launching a campaign with the tag line of If you can dream it, we can build it.

Let's see what the release says people are dreaming about:

As a chassis rolls out of the plant and down the road, all kinds of people in all kinds of places start adding what they want on a vehicle including MyGig™ with navigation, dual DVD system and Swivel ‘n Go™ seating system.

Now, maybe there are a few people who are dreaming about twin movie screens and minivan seats that face backwards. But I suspect that even more people want things that are even simpler. Things like better interiors, with more care spent on fit-and-finish, and less cheap-looking plastic. Better fuel economy, especially in excessively thirsty vehicles like the Dakota and Durango. Less-expensive versions of utility machines, such as pickup trucks. And possibly most important of all, a good-quality, inexpensive subcompact that can compete with vehicles like the Toyota Yaris and Chevrolet Aveo -- a segment Chrysler has promised us (with a Chinese-built car) but has yet to enter.

I want to see Chrysler do well, because a strong, mostly-domestic automaker is good for our economy. But strong companies start with strong foundations. It's fine to have the odd gimmick, but only when it's added on to a well-built, good-looking, fuel-efficient, realistically-priced vehicle with a reputation for bulletproof quality and reliability. That's my dream, Chrysler. Now build it.

News from Nissan ...

That's a Nissan, and it's coming soon to an intersection near you.

Well, maybe not that exact one, but the news is out: Nissan is entering the light commercial vehicle market in North America. It's planning on building three new vehicles that will enter the market in the first half of 2010, and while there's not been anything concrete yet, the company has confirmed that they'll be under the eight-ton GVW range. It's also forming a partnership with Cummins to supply the engines.

Most importantly, they'll be built in Canton, Mississippi for use in North America, thanks to an investment of $118 million, on top of the tooling for the trucks. There's no word yet on where the ousted Quest minivan and QX56 will go once the plant gears up for the trucks, although I'm wondering if the company will abandon them entirely. In any case, kudos to Canton, and here's hoping it makes for a lot more jobs in an area that can probably use them.

Simple is good

This is the dash of the Mercedes-Benz GL-Class, which begins my rant for the day: why does expensive need to mean complicated?

I'm not singling Mercedes out here, not by any means -- it was just the picture that was handy. I could have selected a vehicle by almost every automaker out there, because almost all of them are guilty.

I remember the days when an expensive car had pretty much the same controls as a cheaper car; they were just better quality. Now, an expensive car practically guarantees that you've got to memorize a manual the size of an encyclopedia, and chances are good that there will be a few controls you'll eventually forget how to use.

In many cars, if you want to change the heater vent mode, or switch your stereo, you've got to page through a series of computer screens to get to the one you want. On many cars, there are rows upon rows of identical buttons. On one truck I drove, I counted all the buttons, starting at the driver's armrest and going over to the passenger's door. There were 83 of them. That's not a misprint: eighty-three buttons. On a vehicle that many people drive at 120 km/h.

And on top of that, so many of these systems are absolutely non-intuitive. Why is it that one manufacturer's navigation system is simple enough that I can use it without a manual, and others require me to all but take a course in how to work it? Why can't the engineers grab someone from the front office, sit them down cold in front of it, and then, if they can't work it right off the bat, make it easy?

The funny thing is that I've driven a few high-end sports cars, the type that'll do 300 km/h without breaking a sweat. And it seems that the faster they can go, the simpler their controls. So why is it that a car that's meant to be driven on a racetrack, alongside other trained drivers who are concentrating equally on the task, is simple to use, and one that's meant to be driven in rush-hour traffic looks like an airplane cockpit?

Here's the deal: if it's something I do infrequently, such as setting the rolling locks, then hide it away in a vehicle information centre (that is, in turn, easy to figure out). If it's something I'm going to be changing regularly while I'm driving, like the heater mode or the stereo volume, make it a honkin' big dial in the middle of the dash. A safe car isn't just the one with sixteen airbags. It's the one that lets me work the controls while keeping my eyes on the road.

A topsy-turvy world ...

Twenty years ago, if you'd told me this was going to happen, I would have laughed out loud. This is a ribbon-cutting ceremony that took place in Georgia yesterday. It's the beginning of a Kia assembly plant.

It's an upside-down auto world in which we're living these days. Ford, GM and Chrysler are cutting back shifts and closing plants in North America, and at the same time, they're opening facilities in China, in Thailand, in India, in Korea, in Romania, and in yesterday's news, in Uzbekistan (I'll admit, I had to look that one up on a map).

And while the domestics are moving overseas, here at home we've got Toyota and Honda expanding in Ontario, Hyundai in Alabama, BMW in North Carolina, Nissan in Tennessee, and Mitsubishi in the improbably-named town of Normal, Illinois.

You really have to sit back and wonder where everything's going, and where it's going to end. It's obvious that labor costs are playing a part in this, although I'd imagine even the poorer workers in the South (because no one's building these plants in rich cities) are making more than workers at plants in Thailand and India, which tells me tariffs are part of this too. And I would expect that eventually these plants will start to outsource some of their production materials, just as the Big Three have done. The domestic auto plant in the city where I live used to build its cars almost from scratch. Now many components are coming in already built up, from independent companies that make the parts for the price the automaker's willing to pay.

And while we all want a car that doesn't cost much, there's a flip side to all of this. Maybe unionized auto workers do make too much. But at the same time, many of them pay as much in taxes as someone greeting customers at the local big-box store takes home in a year. When it comes to the quality of municipal services, I'd rather have a tax base of overpaid auto workers than a tax base made up solely of "would you like fries with that?". Think about who pays for your police, fire, schools, health care and social programs next time you complain about wages.

These days, I don't know what to think. Every new ground-breaking ceremony gives me hope, and every idled plant and reduced shift makes me worry. I'm guessing that a few decades ago, the people who made television sets in Canada and the U.S. wondered what was going to happen to their industry. I don't think I have to tell you how that went.

Something new: glossaries

I'm slowly compiling glossaries that will help explain some of the terms related to new and old cars. Bear with me, as it's an ongoing process, but you can find them through the new links to the right. I've tried to keep the definitions as simple as possible -- cars are complex and the last thing you need is an equally confusing description!

Time Marches On

This is my pride and joy, my 1947 Cadillac known affectionately as Lucille. She's one of a few older vehicles I've owned, along with the 1949 Studebaker I still have, and long-departed models including a 1948 Chevrolet and 1962 Pontiac Acadian. I learned to drive on a 1972 Plymouth Scamp, and there was one at the Antique Automobile Club of America's show last year, so I guess that qualifies these days, too.

I love old cars dearly, but I'll say this: I'm realistic, too. Whenever I take Lucille out and park her somewhere, I'm guaranteed that someone will come up and say, "They don't make 'em like that anymore."

And my immediate reply is, "That's not a bad thing."

I don't know what it is about old cars, but they sure bring out the rose-colored glasses in a lot of people. Save for the odd Amish wannabe, I can't think of too many people who would prefer shovelling coal into the furnace over tapping the thermostat, or hauling ice to the icebox instead of opening the refrigerator, or biting on a bullet as opposed to surgery in a modern hospital. But mention automobiles, and as far as these people are concerned, there hasn't been a single improvement in the industry since Henry Ford brought out the Model T.

Too many people in the old-car hobby are blinded by nostalgia. Sure, I make my living with new cars, but that's not the reason why I think they're so much better. It's because they are.

People rap on Lucille's thick fenders and say, "These new cars just crumple up when you hit them." Well, that's because they're supposed to; they absorb the crash energy instead of passing it through to the occupants, unlike the the old cars where you hosed the blood off the dash and sold 'em to the next guy. People say you can't fix a new car in your garage anymore, and that's true, but you're also not doing the numerous repairs that older cars needed, like tune-ups twice a year. And as for their longevity, well, most old cars had a three-month warranty. Some manufacturers now guarantee their vehicles for ten years. 

And as for the hobbyists who say all new cars look the same ... if you've gone to the trouble of learning that a groove in the bumper differentiates a 1946 Olds from a 1947, but you'll proudly proclaim that you can't tell a 2008 Buick from a BMW, that's just wilful ignorance.

Don't get me wrong -- there's nothing fundamentally wrong with nostalgia. When the time machine's invented, you can put a martini in my hand and ship me back to the Las Vegas strip, circa 1960, with a ticket for a Rat Pack show. It'll be great fun, and yes, pick me up at the door in whatever land yacht is available. But when I finally come back home in the middle of winter, you can leave that lovely model's vacuum wipers, manual choke, four-wheel drum brakes, single-chamber master cylinder and bias-ply tires back in the garage where they belong.

Chrysler's leaving California

Chrysler has announced that it's closing its Pacifica Advance Product Design Center in Carlsbad, California and will consolidate the Advance Design function at its headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan.

Now, news from the automakers is usually made available to journalists on media-specific Web sites during business hours, with lots of quotes that we can use to beef up the story, and photos if they're available. This little tidbit came as a very low-key email, and with the same terse message posted not on Chrysler's media Web site, but on a blog that it reserves as a chattier version for the press. No quotes, no photos, not even an attribution -- just "by Editor". And it arrived late on a Friday night.

Methinks they don't want us to say too much about it.

The email said that the function will be consolidated with Michigan, but the last paragraph reads, These changes set the stage for Chrysler's future global growth efforts, which also include our intent to establish global expertise in design, engineering and sourcing through centers of excellence. These actions will help the Company meet its long-term globlization goals.

Translation: we're going to find a place that'll make the cars for cheap.

It's not new, of course. GM's been doing it for a long time -- you want to get a deer in the headlights look, go up to half the people driving Chevrolet Aveos (bonus points if they've got a "Buy Domestic" license plate frame) and ask them if they know their cars are built in Korea. Rather tellingly, GM built three new subcompact concepts and had the public vote on which one it should build. One was designed in the U.S. The winner, announced at last year's Los Angeles Auto Show, was designed in India. Hmmm. I wonder where the actual car will be built, and if that has any bearing on how that particular design was chosen.

Y'know, in the grand scheme of things, I do have a bit of a handle on how corporations work. Even if I don't like it, I understand why companies move production offshore, whether it's cars or clothes or call centres.

I just wish everyone would be honest, instead of coating it all in bafflegab. Come clean with us: it costs too much money to design a car in California, so we're closing that office and we'll be contracting the work overseas. Will the public like it? Of course not. But I think John Q. Public would have more respect for a company that tells him up front what it's doing, instead of sneaking out the back door in the middle of the night.

Well, that was quick ...

The federal government has decided to get rid of the ecoAUTO rebate program, only a year after it put the scheme in place. Hang on, let me open my wallet a bit wider. It cost money going in, and it'll undoubtedly cost money going out.

I'd like to say it was a good idea in theory, but it never really was. The plan was that the government kicked back rebates, ranging from $1,000 to $2,000, to people who bought brand-new vehicles that met specific fuel economy standards.

There were the usual problems that spring up when ideas are conceived in haste and implemented at leisure. Apparently, it took more than six months from the time the program got underway until the application forms were ready, and even when buyers could finally apply, there were long waits. According to an article by Carol Goar of the Toronto Star, only 30,000 of the 50,000 people who sent in their applications had received their money as of mid-February.

Much of my objection to the program was in the discrepancies. The Dodge Caliber, for example, doesn't meet the fuel economy requirements for passenger cars, and so there's no refund. But the similarly-sized Jeep Compass, which is mechanically identical and gets the same fuel mileage, is classified as an SUV, and so you get $1,000 back.

And there's a rebate for some flexible-fuel vehicles, which can run on E85, a fuel made of 85% grain-based ethanol and 15% petroleum gasoline. Sounds good, except that at last count, two gas stations in Ottawa appear to be the only ones from St. John's to Victoria that sell it. So you get $1,000 back because your vehicle could potentially save the planet, if you could only fill it with the right juice.

In her article, Goar also notes that while the government will no longer be handing you money back for buying a fuel sipper, it will still be collecting the "green levy" on gas guzzlers, which Goar says generates some $110 million per year. Hey, maybe the feds will spend that cash on improved public transit, bicycle lanes, incentives for car companies to build more fuel-efficient vehicles, and better urban planning to eliminate housing developments that make car ownership necessary in the first place. Yes, I think that's exactly what they'll do.

My big brother's watching

This is SmartAlert. It's a new system that Ford and Lincoln dealers in the U.S. will be selling to customers, at a cost of about $1,000 plus a monthly subscription fee. Ford calls it an "onboard, intelligent communication service that connects (customers) with their car or truck." I call it the end of the old-fashioned private eye.

SmartAlert knows where the vehicle is. That's no big deal; systems like GM's OnStar have been around for years. What SmartAlert does is tell you what it knows. It'll send email, phone and text messages to warn you if your car's being moved without authorization (a good thing, granted), if someone's driving it faster than a pre-set speed limit (also a good thing), where a thief has taken it (ditto), and a report of exactly where it was, when it was there, and how long it stayed.

That sound you just heard was Philip Marlowe and Sam Spade crying in their beer. Who needs the guy in the fedora slouched in his car, camera at the ready, to catch one's husband meeting up with his mistress?

Frankly, I sometimes wonder at the things people find intrusive. A police camera on a crime-ridden corner that might film a shooting or a drug deal? We can't have that -- it's an invasion of privacy. A red-light camera at the intersection that could photograph dangerous drivers? We can't have that -- you have no right to send a ticket to the car's owner after the fact. An onboard system that'll track your every movement, send email reports, and file a monthly statement telling you exactly where your car was every minute of the day? Hey, that's technology! Here's my thousand bucks -- sign me up!

A grain of salt

One of my all-time favourite movies is The Blues Brothers. I've probably seen it twenty times and could watch it twenty more, and yet, when it came out, most of the critics savaged it. It was the wrong film for them, but it was the right film for me.

The moral of the story? Be critical when you read criticism.

I make most of my living reviewing cars, but I'll be the first to tell you that my reviews, and the reviews of all my colleagues, are only guidelines. A smart buyer uses them to help make a buying decision, but never depends on them.

For the most part, here's how car reviewing works. Each manufacturer puts specific vehicles into its "press fleet". They're usually introductory models, which is why you don't see up-to-date reviews of cars that have been around and unchanged for several years. The option packages vary with each company, but I'm more likely to get a moderate- to fully-loaded vehicle than I am a base model, especially with trucks and SUVs. These come to me from the automaker -- I don't go to a dealer and get a car out of their stock -- and I drive them for a week. They're not specially-prepped for the journalists, as some people suspect; it's not unheard-of for me to pick up a car that's dirty or out of gas, or with obvious problems.

I like to look for things that most people don't find on a test-drive and might later become an issue. When you see these things mentioned in a review, you need to decide if you can live with them. If you never drink coffee in your car, for example, a poorly-placed cupholder isn't an issue. I also like to look at how a car will be used. It's my pet theory that a lot of inexpensive cars get a bad rap from journalists who just got out of sportscars, and who forget that there's a huge market for people who don't need road feel and brilliant acceleration -- or a big price tag -- to get to the office and the grocery store.

Keep in mind, too, that most of us get low-mileage cars and drive them for seven days. We seldom know what a new model's long-term reliability will be.

All of those are reasons why reviews can be an important buying tool, but they shouldn't be your only one. Use them to make a list of the cars you want to try -- and then put your butt in the seat and drive them all for yourself.

It's easy looking green

The writer's strike is over, the Oscars will go on, and of course the celebrities need wheels to get them to the red carpet. General Motors is obliging with a fleet of "fuel-friendly" vehicles, including gasoline-electric hybrids, fuel cell vehicles and those that can run on ethanol, when it can be found.

Celebrities love hybrids as much as they love winning Oscars. They arrive at events in Priuses, they pay cubic dollars for electric sportscars, and a few of them are even driving BMW Hydrogen 7 cars around California. They're greener than Kermit, and admittedly, a celebrity in a Prius is probably chewing up fewer resources overall than a celebrity in a Hummer H2.

But have you seen their houses?

Have a look sometime, when Vanity Fair or Entertainment Tonight gets a camera inside the gates. The average big-name movie star drives that Prius home to a 10,000-square-foot climate-controlled house, with a pool, and with acres of irrigated grass and gardens, many of them in the desert.

I drive a full-size, eight-cylinder truck. But my house is about 900 square feet. I have no air conditioning, I don't water my lawn, I don't use pesticides, I compost every scrap of even faintly organic material right in my back yard, I get my water out of a well and I don't have a pool.

No, I don't own a hybrid.

But I think that in the grand scheme of things, we're just about even.

Sometimes it's the little things

When you walk around a new-car show, it's the big stuff that draws your attention: flashy paint, big wheels, all-new models.

But sometimes, the tiniest thing there could be the next wave of the future.

Case in point: this is the Hummer HX concept, which I saw at the Detroit Auto Show in January. It's a throwback to the Volkswagen Thing, with removable doors, roof and fender flares, and it's the work of three designers young enough to get carded when they go for a beer.

It might be the basis of an open-air, entry-level model to compete with the Jeep Wrangler, but that won't be its legacy. Instead, these designers might have changed the whole way we look at car stereos. In short, the HX doesn't have one.

It's got a full speaker system, though, and a jack to accept your iPod or other music player, and it's absolutely bloody brilliant. The CD player is going the way of the eight-track; who wants to carry a stack of slippery jewel cases when you can tote thousands of songs on something the size of a pack of gum? A great many people, me included, use the stereo as little more than a means to connect a digital player to the speakers.

Looking into my crystal ball, I see a world where this configuration will be the default, and a stereo -- with AM, FM, satellite, CD or whatever -- is an add-on option. Out of everything unveiled at Detroit in 2008, I'm betting that this is the one that counts.

Car of the Year: Does it matter?

The Automobile Journalists Association of Canada (AJAC), of which I am a member, is in a bit of an uproar over the story behind this photo. That's the Audi R8, a car that costs $139,000 and will sell about 100 copies in Canada. The award that Audi president Diego Ramos is holding is AJAC's 2008 Canadian Car of the Year.

The flap is that a car so exclusive should not be Car of the Year. It should go to something that the average person might have a chance of owning. Ithought it should have come down to a run between the Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord and Kia Rondo, but that's not how a democracy works. (And I will also add that, due to a scheduling conflict, I wasn't at the three-day back-to-back testing where the winners are chosen; I guess if you don't vote, you can't really complain.)

But all of that aside, it brings me to another question: are Car of the Year awards now so common that they really don't mean much anyway?

Car of the Year awards effectively began in 1949, when Motor Trend magazine gave its inaugural one to Cadillac in recognition of its new high-compression, overhead-valve V8 engine. During the early years, it went to a manufacturer, not a car, and for three years it wasn't awarded at all.

Now, every publication and every association names its annual winners. Car and Driver, Green Car Journal, Road & Track, Top Gear, What Car, MSN, and even Mother Proof name theirs, and there are many more. There's a North American Car of the Year, a European Car of the Year, a World Car of the Year, an International Car of the Year, Japan Car of the Year, and even a Lithuanian Car of the Year. 

AJAC says that surveys indicate more than half of new-car buyers are influenced by its award. Perhaps in Canada that's very true, since we have fewer "best of the best" handouts across the country, and the AJAC award is the biggest. Even so, when thousands of pieces of hardware get handed out each year, it does tend to water it down.

The smartest buyers will look at awards specific to their needs. You want the best van to haul your children, you go to Mother Proof, because they aren't wowed by 420 horses. Their testers look at stuff that matters to buyers with $25,000 to spend. Or buyers should look past AJAC's single Car of the Year, and look at each of the category winners. Someone with $139,000 and a hankering for an R8 doesn't care if it took Car of the Year or it ended up at the bottom of the pile. It's the folks who work hard for their money and can't afford to spend a lot of it who should be the focus of Car of the Year awards. Look at the cars, but look at the audience, too. Maybe then these awards will be relevant again.

Presenting the ChryWagen

This is a Routan.

Now, you probably haven't heard of it before, although you're thinking it looks familiar. It's from Volkswagen, sort of, and it's pronounced ROO-tan. Yes, the same folks who gave us Tiguan and Touareg, and could use some new staff in the naming department. Routan -- now available without a prescription! But I digress ...

Anyway, I just got back from the Toronto Auto Show press preview, where VW took the wraps off the stunning Passat CC (think Mercedes-Benz CL-Class, but hopefully with a lower price tag) and the Routan. If that one looks familiar, that's because Chrysler builds it alongside the Dodge Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country on behalf of VW. (Instead of Routan, maybe they could have called it a Vodge. Or a ChryWagen.)

I wish VW all the luck in the world with it, but really, what were they thinking? The traditional minivan market used to be a license to print money, but that's all changed. You want to do well in this shrinking segment, you make something really inexpensive, like a base Caravan, or a Hyundai Entourage, or a Kia Sedona, because people know it's just going to end up covered in kidspit and dog hair. Sure, the pricier Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna are great pieces of engineering, but those two combined sold just under 22,000 copies last year in Canada, compared to 56,572 Dodge and Chrysler vans.

VW should have learned a lesson with the Phaeton, which they wouldn't have been able to keep in stock if they'd released it as an Audi: it's damn tough to sell a $100,000 car that has the same badge as a $16,000 Golf. While pricing hasn't been released, I'm betting the bank that this minivan is going to have a higher sticker than its Caravan twin. Sure, it'll have a nicer interior and "sport-tuned suspension" (be careful you don't tip the groceries when carving corners), but it's a Dodge with a VW badge. Call me crazy, but I think buyers just might figure that out.