WomanOnWheels.ca

One million electric vehicles by 2015: Not as long as gas is cheap

The U.S. Department of Energy has released a new report, One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015, which backs up President Obama's stated goal of ... well, guess how many EVs will be on the road by what year. The report says that the goal is "ambitious" but "achievable." Of course, I wouldn't expect the report to conclude anything else, but I'm not buying it, not the way it's written. I'm certainly no expert, but I'm not seeing it.

First, there's the o'er-the-ramparts-we-watched aspect of it. "This is a race America can win," says DOE secretary David Sandalow, "if we answer the President's call to out-innovate, out-build, and out-compete the rest of the world."

Sure, you need the all-American aspect of it to lead the troops, and I'm the first to say that a country only becomes strong when it has a solid manufacturing base. America needs to build these vehicles at home. But as soon as you make it a race to beat everybody else, you've severed your ties with the people who can help you. The Japanese were building viable hybrids when American companies were still trying to figure out four-cylinder engines. Why start at the very beginning, when you can work in conjunction with people who know what they're doing? Contrary to popular redneck belief, Nissan won't be sending every penny it makes on the Leaf back to Japan. That cash will stay in Smyrna, Tennessee where the car will be built, going home with the workers, going into the local tax coffers, working its way into the community.

Getting plant capacity up to one million electric vehicles isn't a problem, the report says, and it's correct on that. We can probably pop out many more than that every year. What we can't do as easily is find people to buy them. So the government is offering a rebate of up to $7,500 on each one, and offering grants to communities that prioritize electric vehicle deployment.

The problem is that the government won't do the one thing that is needed to advance the deployment of electric vehicles - raise the price of gasoline. Because that will be political suicide, and everyone in Washington knows it.

Why do Europeans buy little cars with little engines? Because gasoline costs a fortune over there. As long as gasoline is cheap, people will buy the relatively inexpensive vehicles that use it, rather than the relatively expensive vehicles that don't. People do the math. If the premium on that electric or hybrid car is more than what it saves in fuel, most won't buy it. Despite the whole "green" movement, and sending children to school to learn about rain forests, and putting cans out to the curb for recycling, most people will put their coins ahead of their carbon footprint. If a car costs too much, it doesn't matter how little it spews out the exhaust pipe, if it has one at all.

I wonder what One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015 cost to produce. I could have saved them a bundle and written it up in the time it takes to say it: If you want people to buy alternative vehicles, raise the price of gas until it's worth their while. Sure, there will always be people who buy Volts or Leafs because they're cool and techy and neat. But as long as gas costs less than bottled water, it will be a long, long time, if ever, before you find a million of those folks willing to open their wallets.

High-temperature gaskets: keeping up with engine technology

One thing that always stands out, whenever I write my weekly technology column, is how making a change to one function of a car usually results in a need to change something else to accommodate it. This time around, it's gaskets: some of the improvements made to engines to make them more fuel-efficient also produce more heat than regular gaskets can take. So here's a look at high-temperature alloys that provide a solution. Click here to read it (sorry about the pdf; it didn't seem to run online this time around).

The Detroit Auto Show: Connecting, but not always with the car

I spent yesterday at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. This year, it was a little different; while there are still two press days, almost all of the car reveals were on Monday. So I got there at 6:00 a.m. and got out at 7:00 p.m. I think these things on the bottoms of my legs are my feet, but I'm not absolutely sure.

Each year, the automakers always seem to have a theme, based on what the public seems to want. Sometimes it's horsepower; more often recently it has been fuel economy. The 2011 Detroit show was all about connectivity, and not always the type where you're connecting with the road.

Just about every vehicle that came out had some sort of computer screen, computer hookup, or social media connectivity built into it. Never mind just being able to synch your phone with Bluetooth or plug in your iPod. There were cars - some of them concepts, others production - that would find nearby movie theaters and give you the ratings on the films, let you Skype through a pad built into the seat, or page through a giant LED screen that was part of the dash.

There was even one - I think it was Hyundai - that would pinpoint your position and, through matching screens in other vehicles, let your friends know exactly where you were. Like instant messaging, except that your little dot came up on a map and moved around. I remember when people warned us about Big Brother stuff like that, and now people want to buy it.

Okay, I'm older than most of the people the automakers are targeting with this stuff. In fact, I feel like I'm adding twenty years to my age just by complaining about it. But on one hand, we have NHTSA and other government agencies mandating airbags, electronic stability control, anti-lock brakes, rollover crash standards and other items that are meant to keep us alive - and on the other hand, we're stuffing these cars full of electronic gadgets that, by their very nature, require you to take your eyes off the road or take your concentration away from driving.

I realize that younger drivers want connectivity and the automakers are feeding that desire, just as they fed my generation's desire for horsepower and styling and handling. But you can't have it both ways. The automakers made the cars safer - and now they're falling over themselves to offer vehicles that are not.

My husband wryly commented that if he's in his car and he wants to connect with someone, he drives to that person's house, knocks on the door, and sits down and has a conversation with him. He calls it FaceLook.

MyFord Touch: It may be the answer to the question no one asked

MyFord Touch, along with the MyLincoln Touch pictured here, is a new system for controlling a vehicle's climate, entertainment, navigation and phone controls.

I don't like it and have written that on several occasions. And while I felt like a lone voice in the wilderness for quite a while, I've now been vindicated by Consumer Reports, which has reviewed MyFord Touch for its February 2011 issue. The magazine's editors found it to be "a complicated distraction while driving," and in addition, "first-time users might find it impossible to comprehend. The system did not always perform as promised."

That's basically what I've said since the first time I laid eyes on it. In fact, when judging vehicles for the Canadian Car of the Year award, I gave the Lincoln MKX low marks for ergonomics based on the faceplate you see here. Try driving and touching one of those tiny nubbins to turn the heat up. Sure, I could also have done it through a button on my steering wheel that would bring up a little LED picture in my instrument cluster, or I could have pushed another button and told the disembodied voice exactly what temperature I wanted. But why should such a simple request require so much technology?

Why, when I'm driving 100 km/h and my eyes are supposed to be on the road, should I have to do anything other than reach over and spin a big honkin' dial to turn the temperature up or down? Other than the fact that some design engineer thinks that this is what people want, why should any control on any vehicle be anything other than dead-nuts simple?

Electric vehicles: Get to know your local dealer

There's an interesting item out on the news wire today from research firm Frost & Sullivan about hybrids and electric vehicles. In the chicken-and-egg situation that greets almost all new technology, it seems that OE dealers may be keeping their hands on these cars long after the warranty's up.

More than 40% of independent garages surveyed said they aren't equipped to service hybrids, while almost 60% can't fix or maintain electric vehicles (and those numbers are low enough that I'm suspicious about the ones who said they can). And since hybrids make up less than 3% of market share each year, no one's really running out and spending the time and money to learn all about them. Very importantly, the aftermarket parts companies - the ones that make the less-expensive components that most of us buy when the dealer wants three times their price for OEM - aren't tooling up to make hybrid- and EV-specific parts.

When the Prius was young, my friend and colleague Brian Early took a test-car version to a Toyota shop and had to show the guys there how to start it. All new ideas have to start somewhere and build gradually, but I think the early adopters may well be in for a somewhat bumpy ride. 

Chevrolet: The more things change ...

... the more they stay the same. This is the oil filter on the upcoming Chevrolet Cruze, which the company is saying will be easier to recycle and service. Instead of a conventional spin-on filter, which is folded paper inside a metal canister, the Cruze block contains an integrated housing into which a paper filter is dropped.

Which is the way you change the filter on my 1950 International farm tractor, and how it was done on my husband's 1957 Cadillac when it still had its original engine. It's the way pretty much every engine used to be, back in the day ... time marches on!

Runaway cars: Not just Toyota's problem, it seems

There's an interesting report out today by Edmunds.com on the issue of unintended acceleration -- the problem Toyota is famously facing right now. The company looked at NHTSA data for the "Big Six" -- Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan and Toyota -- and found that every one has consumer complaints filed against them for unintended acceleration.

Toyota has the dubious distinction of leading the pack, though -- Edmunds says the number of complaints filed against it exceed the rest of the Big Six combined.

And while you might be tempted to say that it's because of the media exposure, it seems that there's more to it than that. Edmunds analyzed complaints filed before and after September 30, 2009 - since Toyota announced its safety advisory regarding potential floor mat interference on September 29, 2009. Looking at 2005 to 2010 models, Edmunds found 601 complaints filed after the advisory went out and the media scuffle began. But in nearly five years prior to the advisory, Toyota had 532 complaints.

Toyota's rate of complaints was the highest, at 4.81 per 100,000 vehicles sold. Ford was second at 3.12, followed by Chrysler at 1.72, Honda at 1.46, Nissan at 1.07, and GM at 0.81.

What's going on here? I expected the numbers to jump when the media got hold of the story, especially since some of it bordered on the ridiculous (people sobbing on camera in front of vehicles not connected to any of the recalls, and the Toronto Star running a photo of a woman who now carries a rosary in her car after it jumped a curb) and all manner of Nervous Nellies and Lawsuit Larrys came out of the closet. But the numbers didn't change all that drastically from the years when no one made a fuss about it, and now it seems that Toyota isn't alone.

Maybe cost-cutting has gone too far. After all, we've got expensive systems like anti-lock brakes and electronic stability control and TPMS mandated or about to be mandated on every vehicle; we've got power accessories and fancy stereos pretty much across the board; and people still want their cars to cost $15,000. You don't get something -- or in this case, everything -- for nothing, and maybe that's the root of the problem.

Chevy Volt and fuel cells: Electric power to the people!

I had quite the glimpse into the automotive future yesterday: I had the opportunity to drive both the Chevrolet Volt and Equinox Fuel Cell Vehicle in Vancouver.

I'll be officially reporting on the Volt in print shortly, but in the meantime, suffice to say that even for a short spin around Stanley Park, it was exciting to be at the wheel, just to get a look at what's coming. It's fun to read about technology, but it's even better to get a hands-on chance to experience it. 

Why, yes, I knew that ...

I make a habit out of reading the owner's manual of every car I test-drive. It's mostly to learn about the car, and partly to assemble my annual "Auto Funnies" column -- 2007 is here, and 2008 is over here.

These manuals are intended to inform people who don't know anything about their cars. So I could only shake my head when I read this in the Toyota Prius' manual:

Your vehicle must use only unleaded gasoline.Select octane rating 88 (Research Octane Number 92). Use of unleaded gasoline with an octane rating lower than 88 may result in engine knocking. At minimum, the gasoline you use should meet the specifications of ASTM D4814 in the U.S.A. and CGSB3.5-M93 in Canada.

Why, yes, thank you, that's much clearer!

The digital thermostat: What took you so long?

Funny things, cars is. The new car in my driveway probably has more electronics in it than the rocket that went to the moon. Depending on the vehicle, it can shut off half its cylinders when it doesn't need them, switch between gasoline engine or electric motor, monitor its own emissions, keep the driver cool and the passenger warm, pull satellite signals out of the sky, figure out the air pressure in each tire, and even hit its own brakes if the driver isn't paying attention.

And yet, when it comes to the thermostat, an essential little piece of hardware that controls coolant flow, keeping the engine from running too hot or too cold, it depends on a mechanical valve that uses a spring, a rod, and wax that melts or firms up to make it work.

That little Sputnik in the photo is a design by Mileage Matrix that intends to replace the thermostat, keeping the engine temperature right where it belongs at all times for optimum use.

A much better system, and it's surprising that it took so long for someone to come up with it. Still, it just ain't the same as dropping the old-style ones into a pan of boiling water to see if they still work, or remembering to change from the hot-running one to the cold-running one as part of the rites of spring ...

The new U.S. auto standards: everyone is working TOGETHER?

Hard to believe, but in the news today, it looks like everyone with a stake in the U.S. auto industry and the environment is on the same page. Did you ever think you'd see it?

We're talking the EPA, NHTSA, the automakers, California -- hell, it's even the Republicans and Democrats nodding their heads together. I'm going to check the sky tonight to see if there are two blue moons.

The U.S. has announced a commitment to establish a unified national program that sets tailpipe emissions standards and accelerates a new fuel economy standard.

The short version seems to be that fuel economy standards and tailpipe emission standards will be uniform across the country, and the standards will be set in stone until 2016. According to various reports, this means that California won't need a waiver for its stricter-than-usual standards (although it will be able to enforce its own limits until a national standard is set), the automakers that are taking the state to court over its standards will drop their lawsuits, and most importantly, the auto companies will be able to plan their vehicles for all 50 states, without having to worry that they'll meet a standard over here, and then be looking at a new one over there.

I sat down one day with the vice-president of Honda Canada, who said that was the toughest thing. "Tell us what we have to meet, and we'll meet it," he said. "Just give us one standard to meet."

Well, it looks like he got his wish. And what's even more surprising is that, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, this means that three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and various environmental groups agreed to work together on a national program.

Never thought I'd live long enough to hear that, I must say.

Ford's MyKey: Guidelines for young drivers

  I had an opportunity to see a demonstration of Ford's MyKey, the new system that sets limits on what a young driver can do with the car's speed, audio controls and seatbelts. It's up on Canadian Driver, and you can find it by clicking here.

Fuel figures: Ever wonder why you can't match them?

  Every time I take out a test car, I do a mileage check on it. I start with a full tank, drive it for a week, fill it up, and then do the math. And much of the time, I don't achieve the vehicle's official mileage figures.

I always thought that the official figures were achieved by taking out the vehicle on a cloudless day, dropping by the racetrack to find the smallest jockey there, and having him drive it on a glass-smooth road. But it turns out that, compared to the way it's actually done,that would be too realistic.

Instead, according to Natural Resources Canada, here's the story. First of all, the government only compiles the figures (and then prints them in a guide that you can find online at ecoENERGY, or as a hard copy by calling 1-800-387-2000, or dropping by most new-car dealers who will give you one at no charge).

Instead, it's the car manufacturers that do the actual testing, in laboratory conditions (which, in fairness, eliminates outside variables). They use a procedure standardized to government specifications, on a two-wheel chassis dynamometer, with a new vehicle that's got about 6,000 km "run-in" on it. Four-wheel and all-wheel-drive vehicles are tested in two-wheel drive mode, and then the tests are "adjusted to reflect the increased weight and engine load using 4x4 and AWD systems," according to the government's website. On all ratings, "other adjustments are made to reflect the average fuel consumption of vehicle configurations, options and sales mixes sold in Canada," although it doesn't specify exactly what the adjustments are. The automaker submits the figures, and only if they seem truly out of whack does the government get involved in the procedure.

In any case, the automaker has to provide figures for both city and highway use. So on the city course, the test simulates a 12-kilometre, stop-and-go-trip, with an average speed of 32 km/h, and a top speed of 91 km/h. The test runs for 23 minutes and includes 18 stops, with about four minutes of that test time spent idling to represent waiting at traffic lights. The test begins from a cold engine start, similar to starting a vehicle after it has been parked overnight during the summer. When the test is completed, it's done again with a hot engine start, and the first eight minutes of the test are repeated, to simulating restarting a vehicle that has been warmed up, driven, and then stopped for a short time.

Now we're on to the highway, which simulates a 16-kilometre trip, with an average speed of 77 km/h, and a top speed of 97 km/h. The test begins from a hot engine start, and runs 31 minutes, with the speed varying to simulate different kinds of highway and rural roads.

There you have it: slightly over an hour for everything, at a top speed that is not even the posted maximum speed limit on a Canadian limited-access highway.

Remember that, all you readers who write in on a fairly regular basis to complain that my week-long, 200-km-or-so, real-world-driving fuel figure isn't "realistic." I'm already over the official tests long before I even get the car home.

Here's my Collision Avoidance Technology run-down ...

  In the news: Nissan has announced that it will demonstrate its new "All-Around Collision Free" vehicle at the World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems in New York next week. This slick unit has all the acronyms: BCP (Backup Collision Prevention), SCP (Side Collision Prevention), DCA (Distance Control Assist) and LDP (Lane Departure Prevention).

Basically, the car checks to make sure you aren't changing lanes into the side of another vehicle; that you don't back up into oncoming traffic; it taps the brakes if you're coming up too quickly on the car in front; it makes sure you're staying in your lane; and if you don't, it helps bring the car back over.

Pretty slick stuff, and I'm sure a lot of money was poured into it. But in the interest of safe, low-cost motoring, I've designed my own group of safety acronyms to help get you through traffic with as little rearranged metal as possible. My "Super Safety" car includes PDTGCP (Put Down the Goddamn Cell Phone), AYMP (Adjust Your Mirrors Properly), WWYG (Watch Where You're Going), TDTS (Turn Down The Stereo), LBW (Look Both Ways), and YNTOCOTRSBWPA (You're Not The Only Car On The Road, So Bloody Well Pay Attention).

There. Safe, secure, doesn't need a warranty, and doesn't cost an extra dime. That, my friends, is an Intelligent Transport System.

The Volt: Look what it started

  Just a couple of weeks ago, General Motors unveiled the production model of the Chevrolet Volt, and now the floodgates have opened.

One of the three electric prototype models that Chrysler unveiled recently is an extended-range, meaning that, like the Volt, it runs on plug-in battery power and when that runs out, it goes to a gasoline engine that makes more electricity, rather than running the wheels itself. And at the Paris Motor Show today, Volvo announced that it will also have a similar vehicle, scheduled for production after 2012, which will run on battery power and then on gasoline to generate electricity.

So I wonder: did everyone have the same idea at the same time, or did automakers see the Volt concept unveiled in 2007, run to the drawing board, and then wait for the production model to be presented before making their own announcements? It sure seems odd that others are coming out with similar cars so quickly -- and very heartening, too.

I Am Curious (Electric)

  I saw the production Chevrolet Volt yesterday, just one of many plug-in electric or hybrid-electric vehicles that are being planned, from automakers including Nissan and Toyota.

The idea, the companies tell us, is that we'll be able to charge these electric vehicles during "off-peak" hours -- presumably in the evening -- when power requirements are low and prices go down.

But if we're all using air conditioning and lights and water heaters and electrical appliances during the day, and we've got several million electric vehicles all plugged in and charging once we go to bed at night ... then exactly when will "off-peak" be?

Chevrolet Volt: And the hits just keep on coming

  I was in Detroit for GM's hundred-year anniversary celebration, where the company rolled out the production version of the Volt. It's Chevrolet's extended-range electric car, which drivers will plug in to get a 40-mile range on battery power; if you need to go beyond that, there's a small gasoline engine that doesn't power the wheels, but runs the electric motor. GM first introduced it as a concept in 2007 and says it'll be built in November 2010.

The moment it rolled out on stage, the bloggers and the chat rooms exploded. And y'know, I'm no fan of corporations, but I have to admit that I feel for GM on this one. It seems that no matter what you do, you just can't make some people happy. Check out a few message boards and you'll see what I mean.

GM was castigated for dropping the EV1 program. People were furious that the company discontinued its electric car program. And now it's back with one, that addresses the EV1's drawback of range, and people still aren't happy.

The company did its research and found that the average American commuter trip is 40 miles. But if you go beyond that, there's a gas engine to get you a few hundred more miles, either to a wall socket or another gas station. And yet I've heard complaints of "but not everybody drives just 40 miles." Hit. Head. Here.

People complained that the Volt concept's styling was too "out there" to be taken seriously. So the company designs a more conventional (and to my eye, attractive) design, and people are complaining that it's too bland.

There are complaints about the price, even though GM hasn't yet said what it will cost. Yes, price will make or break this car. Do these people honestly think that the company doesn't know that?

And already I've heard complaints that it's an "untried technology". What, and the Prius and Insight were just new versions of hybrids that we'd been driving for the last 50 years? Yes, the battery is new, the system is new, the car is new. Perhaps these folks haven't realized that no matter what it is, from computers to refrigerators to ballpoint pens, somebody had to take a chance on the first ones.

What's wrong with the Volt that makes these people immediately hate it, even though it's been rolled out just once? Simple. It doesn't have Toyota on the nameplate.

Gas taxes: who will pay to repair our roads?

  In a recent issue of AutoWeek magazine, Kevin A. Wilson -- possibly the most observant and common-sense auto writer on the continent -- brought up a point I'd not considered: as gasoline consumption drops, who's going to fund our roads?

Gas taxes don't just sit in the general coffers; they're used to build and maintain roads. If there's no money for maintenance, no one fixes the cracked pavement. Our roadbeds collapse and our bridges fall down, and eventually, the highway system deteriorates to the point that it starts destroying our cars.

As Wilson points out, cars that get better fuel economy use less gasoline, and electric cars don't use any liquid fuel at all. Less gas = less tax money = who's going to foot the bill for our roads? It's not justification for buying a gas guzzler by any means, but right now, while we're on the cusp of dramatically reducing our fuel consumption, we'd better spend just as much time figuring out how the infrastructure is going to be financed. A car that gets 60 mpg isn't much good if there's no place to drive it.

Those were the days ...

That's me, age 13, on my mother's new car, a 1972 Plymouth Scamp. (She just about had a bird when the photos came back from the drugstore.) I learned to drive on that car when I was 17, and not long afterwards, it became the first car I owned. Less than a year after I learned to drive, believe it or not, the city of Toronto gave me a taxi driver's license.

I was thinking about that Plymouth the other day, and the cabs I drove in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when I was assessing a brand-new car and marking against it because it had very few storage cubbies.

How times have changed. My Plymouth had a glovebox and an ashtray, and that was it. With the cabs, we'd sometimes buy plastic consoles that sat on the transmission hump. They could be a pain if someone wanted to sit in the middle, though, because most cars had front bench seats.

Cars didn't have cupholders back then, save for the inside of my glovebox's metal lid, which had a couple of indentations to hold a mug if you stopped at A&W for a root beer. I don't remember people drinking anything when they actually drove. We did in the taxis, because there wasn't time to stop. Coffee shops used styrofoam cups, not paper, and we'd wedge them between the dash and the windshield. Some guys bought cupholders that hung off the windowframe, but they were more trouble than they were worth. We'd put a lid on the cup and then tear out a hole so we could drink on the go, and sometimes passengers would marvel at such a great idea. Now the lids come with the holes already scored.

Cars didn't have door pockets. They didn't have a mirror on the passenger door, but they did have vinyl roofs that were definitely not the stylist's finer moment. If you ordered a rear defogger, it was a fan in the parcel shelf that blew warm air on the window, very noisily. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven the day I got a taxi that had air conditioning, power windows and power locks. It was like driving a Cadillac. And those were back in the days when the only thing better than a Cadillac was a Rolls Royce. Good heavens, I feel old.

Long-term oil solutions: why bother?

In the news today: U.S. Senator Peter Domenici of New Mexico has introduced legislation that he says will dramatically increase domestic production of oil and natural gas, "in order to lower prices and make America less dependent on foreign sources of oil."

The bill will allow oil exploration and extraction in such places as Alaska, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans at the edge of the Outer Continental Shelf, and development of oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

According to a press release, "By expanding production offshore and in Alaska, the legislation will produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil -- enough to keep American running for five years with no foreign imports."

In case that number got by you, I'll repeat it. Five years.

"The bill I'm introducing today will produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil through common sense measures to open up areas offshore and in Alaska for exploration," Domenici said.

Yes, you read that right. He actually said common sense measures. Apparently, in Domenici's world, it makes perfect sense to drill oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and irreparably change it for the sake of five years' worth of fuel.

Back to the press release: Domenici pointed out that had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving over one million barrels a day from Alaska.

Damn that Clinton. If only he'd given more consideration to people and less to those stupid wolves and caribou, we'd be able to drive our SUVs anywhere and anytime we please. What, didn't Bill even stop and question why Ford calls it an Explorer?

Betcha can't drive just one ...

This is a low-fat potato chip.

It's the Cadillac Escalade Hybrid, but it just as easily could be the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid, or the Lexus RX400h, or the upcoming hybrid SUVs from Dodge, or full-size hybrid sedans like the Lexus LS600hL or GS450h.

All of them use hybrid systems to improve their fuel mileage and reduce their emissions, and that's a good thing. But all of them have hybrid systems inside very large, very heavy (and, so far, very expensive) vehicles. And I'm betting that the majority will carry one or two people at the most, and maybe the odd bit of cargo that won't come close to the vehicle's capacity.

Hence, the low-fat potato chip, a food-like object that could only be invented in North America: when confronted with the problem of excess weight and poor dietary health, we buy versions that are slightly less bad for us, rather than reach for an apple or even question if we're hungry at all. Likewise, rather than buy a smaller vehicle, or walk more, or combine our trips so we drive less, we buy the large-by-huge SUV with the slightly better propulsion system. All the taste, a bit less fat, and the smug feeling that yes, we're making the planet a better place, one battery-powered gargantua at a time.

Airbags: They help, but they can harm

The weather's getting nicer in my neck of the woods, and that means that people are shedding their winter boots in favor of lighter footwear, including sandals.

That also means that I've already seen my first teenage passenger riding the oh-so-cool way, with shoes off and feet up on the dash. My blood runs cold every time I see teenagers foolish enough to do this, and parents behind the wheel dumb enough to let them.

Here's the reason: behind that dash panel is an airbag. Hit something, and that airbag inflates within about 40 milliseconds. In effect, that bag is coming toward you at the rate of 150 to 250 miles per hour. (In metric, 240 to 400 km/h -- or, for short, damn fast.)

Imagine putting your legs out in front of you, and then ramming them into a wall at 150 mph. That, in effect, is what the airbag will do. If you're lucky, it'll only break your legs. If you aren't, it'll push your thigh bones through your pelvis. You might walk again, but don't count on it.

Sure, I was young once, and I rode with my feet on the dash. I was also stupid as hell back then, and my dash didn't contain the equivalent of a shotgun shell.

Chances are good these drivers will never hit anything, and their teenage passengers will hop out, all in one piece, and life will be good. But as they say, it only takes a second for a crash, and it doesn't even have to be your fault. It will, however, be your burden.

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.

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.

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.

From the sublime to the ridiculous

Today, in Geneva, Infiniti has unveiled its latest FX model, which should arrive in North America this June. It has technology. Oh, man, does it have technology.

It watches the road ahead and hits the brakes in case you're too busy sipping your coffee to notice that the car ahead of you has stopped. It warns if you're drifting out of your lane -- a common enough occurrence with people on cell phones -- and if you don't listen to it, it'll get its point across by jerking the wheel. And it'll keep its distance from other vehicles when the cruise control is on, so you don't have to go to the trouble.

But this is the one that really gets me: it features the "industry's first appliance of Distance Control Assist." According to Infiniti, it helps reduce the stress of driving in heavy traffic by intuitively helping to release the throttle and apply the brakes to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle ahead.

Here's my advice: if you're that stressed that you can't drive your own car in traffic, do the rest of us on the road a favor and take the friggin' bus.

Sustainable transportation: Lots of little steps

I picked up a copy of The Oprah Magazine the other day in a waiting room. A number of celebrities had been asked what would make the planet a better place. Along with world peace and happiness, one woman said, "A Prius in every driveway."

I almost threw the magazine across the room.

Few things anger me more than the simplistic answer, endlessly parroted. It's not just hybrids, although they have a cheering section all their own. Depending on who you ask, the solution to our transportation woes is ethanol, or hydrogen, or plug-in electrics, or bicycles, or the bus.

I used to believe that, one day, there would be a single perfect solution that would replace petroleum overnight. Now I realize it's going to be a combination of solutions, each with pros and cons carefully weighed -- and not all of them are necessarily going to have four wheels.

We need to look at plug-in hybrids for those who commute shorter distances, and flexible gasoline-electric architecture (such as that used in the Chevrolet Volt) for those who can't easily get to an electrical outlet. We need to realize that some people can fit their family into a Smart, and some need a minivan.

We also need everyone to get on board. A politician can talk sustainable transportation all he likes, but as long as he allows developers to build houses on cul-de-sac mazes and put big-box stores in the middle of parking lots, he's an ass. City planners need to add bicycle lanes and give public transit a higher profile. And parents need to stop bemoaning the quality of the air while they're queuing up to drive Junior five blocks from school to home.

The solution isn't going to be a Prius in every driveway. It's going to be a Prius in this driveway, a diesel-powered sedan in that one, a bicycle in that one, and the last house on the block won't even have a driveway because the homeowner can walk to work. As long as we think there's only one piece to the puzzle, we haven't a hope in hell of solving it.

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!

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.

Don't start something with me

Here's how you start my 1947 Cadillac: You insert the key into the ignition switch on the dash, and then you press a starter button.

Here's how you start a 2008 BMW 5 Series: You insert the key into the ignition switch on the dash, and then you press a starter button.

You'd think we would have come further than that in 61 years.

Thus begins my rant for the day: why do so many automakers feel a need to answer questions that no one asked? Did BMW have customers calling and sending emails, complaining that it was too much trouble to turn a key and would you please add a starter button?

Sure, proximity keys are cool, in a power-trip kinda way. You walk up to your car, and it recognizes you from several steps away and obediently pops its locks (and if it's expensive enough, it can also move the seat and set the stereo to your preference). From there, since the automaker figures it's too much work for you to then pull the key out of your pocket, you simply press a button, the engine springs to life, and away you go.

The fact is, I like putting the key in the ignition. For one thing, I know exactly where it is. It's not digging into my leg through the pocket of my jeans, or thrown in the cupholder where I'm likely to forget it, or in this coat pocket, or ... maybe this coat pocket? For another, I'm not likely to start the car, remember something I should have grabbed in the house, go back in, come back out, and drive off with the key on the back steps. Don't laugh; people do it more frequently than you think, and once you turn the car off at your destination, it won't start again.

I'll also be more likely to remember to actually shut the car off. I still remember the night I came home with a Nissan Altima Hybrid, which uses a button to start and stop the engine. The problem is that, because it's a hybrid, the engine shuts off when you drive slowly into the driveway. So I think I can be forgiven because I forgot to turn off an engine that wasn't running anyway. Just before I went to bed I looked outside and noticed headlights, and went out to find the engine running. Night had fallen, the automatic headlights came on (because the car wasn't shut off), the battery ran down, and the gasoline engine came on to charge it. There's a drawback to having a car smarter than you are.

Back in 1949, Chrysler came out with an all-in-one key system that eliminated the starter button. It was hailed as a revolutionary breakthrough, and became almost universally adopted within a few years. No one wanted to be stuck pushing an old-fashioned button. I wonder what those drivers would think of us today.