Automotive fandom is different than other hobbies because non-enthusiasts generally dictate how the industry reacts to consumer tastes. An individual who doesn’t like playing video games isn’t going to purchase a Nintendo Switch or Playstation 4, but someone who is ambivalent about cars still needs transportation. The gulf between the auto aficionado and casual user is extremely visible in the comments sections and message boards of various car blogs and websites, where certain prejudices continue to fester. I am not above this discourse, which is why I’ll first explain my malfunction, then talk about some flawed thinking I’ve come across on the web.
Like a lot of automotive enthusiasts, I tend to judge people based on the vehicles they drive. I think its somewhat acceptable to do this if the person in question just cut you off or committed some type of egregious traffic infraction. Basically if its purpose is to let off some steam, its okay. Unfortunately, what I do goes beyond surface level judging, to the point where I’ll be skeptical of someone’s intelligence even if all the evidence points to them being a successful individual.
My neighbor’s son graduated from one of New York’s top public universities, works as an engineer for Con Ed, and married a beautiful woman who is also successful. They are incredible parents to their three kids. In spite of all this, I still think back to his purchase of a previous generation Chrysler 200 as a character flaw. Whats worse is that I know the exact reasoning behind his purchase! He just wanted a cheap sedan he could use for commuting purposes that would also haul the occasional baby. The 200 was up to the task, but what really cemented his decision was the rapport he had with the Chrysler salesman, whom he met when they were considering replacing their Nissan Rogue with a minivan. See? Perfectly logical reasons for selecting the car. And yet I still can’t help but think his money would have been better spent elsewhere. But car people come prepackaged with illogical beliefs that would make a Vulcan weep, and I’m no different.
Contains language NSFW
Aside from being overly judgmental about the types of cars driven by their peers, auto enthusiasts tend to overstate both the emotional appeal and business case for rear wheel drive sedans. The argument is very similar to the plan outlined by the Underpants Gnome:
Phase 1: Automaker X or Y builds a rear wheel drive sedan
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit
For mainstream brands, the Charger and 300 duo currently represent about all the market demands. The Alfa Romeo Giulia isn’t selling and the GM stopped producing the SS due to slow sales. The comfort argument for rear drive, full size sedans is no longer applicable, as the current crop of mid-size sedans are refined and smooth enough for anyone who fancies an easy going highway cruiser. Plus, the size difference between the two classes is essentially meaningless given the current dimensions of cars like the Camry and Accord. At this point FCA is the only company that can probably justify developing a rear wheel drive platform for use in mainstream four door sedans.
A lot of car people also tend to heap praise on rear wheel drive vehicles by denigrating front wheel drive models. Despite decades of performance trims like the GTI and cars like the Fiesta ST, some enthusiasts refuse to accept anything that shares its DNA with an economy car, completely disregarding the merits of the actual vehicle.
In fairness, I’ve seen a lot of people come around to the idea that hot hatches can offer a truly authentic performance experience. But unlike the PC versus console debate or Game of Thrones fans who have read all the books, the car enthusiast community contains many multitudes. Some car people feel that anyone not talking about dedicated performance vehicles are inauthentic and not part of automotive fandom in general. That simply isn’t true. Alex Dykes and Tim Cain cater to those looking for information about new cars. Doug DeMuro talks about new cars, old cars, quirky cars, and foreign cars not available in America. Curbside Classic skews historical while Jalopnik develops content for people who are more hands-on with their vehicles. All of these entities consist of writers and readers who ostensibly share a common interest but can discuss topics completely unrelated to one another. A Chevrolet Volt owner who likes to talk about alternative energy vehicles is no less a car enthusiast than a Mazda Miata driver who takes their ride to the local autocross course on the weekends and performs all the maintenance on their own.
While we’re on the topic of modern vehicles I’d like to state that crossovers are not the enemy. I understand why many people exercise their antipathy towards them, but their hatred is misplaced, because the difference between a compact crossover and its sedan counterpart is not nearly as wide as most people believe. This line of thinking continues to persist for one obvious reason: most enthusiasts don’t have the ability to drive every car in an automakers lineup back-to-back. If they did I suspect this line of criticism would be severely muted.
Shoppers usually focus on one particular segment when looking for a new car. Customers in the market for a compact crossover probably aren’t going to sample a Focus after taking out an Escape for a test drive. If they did I’m confident they’d notice the similarities between the two vehicles almost immediately. You can drive any other member of Ford’s global compact platform family (Lincoln MKC, Ford Transit Connect, Ford C-MAX) and have the same experience.
If a crossover suffers from mediocrity, blame the automaker. Ford and Mazda developed their crossovers with sportiness in mind, and despite all the fear about crossovers diluting the portfolios of luxury automakers that also focus on high performance, not one of them received critical scorn for their ride and handling characteristics upon their debut. If you don’t like the way a Rogue tackles expansion joints or speed bumps chances are the Sentra will disappoint you as well. That’s on Nissan, not crossovers in general.
The real issue enthusiasts have with crossovers is their potential to upend sedans. That hasn’t happened yet. And with automakers increasingly turning to modular platforms for their products, its likely rumors about the demise of sedans are greatly exaggerated. We’ll probably see some established models get cancelled and that’s it.
That’s my two cents. So tell me: what’s your malfunction?
Interesting Edward, but I take issue with your first sentence:
For the most part hobby cars aren’t transportation, and vice versa.
The hobby car market is indeed driven by enthusiasts, hence the market pricing of original Cobras, Hemi Cudas, and err, Studebaker Larks.
Everyone else just wants to go to work, and run their errands. So if a Chrysler 200 can do the task at hand, and if I don’t have to maintain it or rescue my friend regularly when it breaks down, great.
He was referring to the industry (for new cars), not the market price of collectible and enthusiast cars, right? Although FWIW, enthusiasts very much do affect the industry, but more on the fringes of the market. Hence we have cars like the Demon.
My malfunction is the opposite of yours, Edward: I always get more interested in a vehicle when the mob piles on.
I’ll take a Chrysler 200 anyday. In Autumn Bronze. Or an Avenger in Sunburst Orange.
The deeper explanation of “why?” would take a lot longer to explain.
I have never been one to equate the income or sense of someone with the car they drive. That seems like the triumph of brand management,so much so, that it’s become ingrained in our psyches through endless advertising.
The walls of my bedroom were papered with old car ads when I was a kid, and I wanted to live like the people in those ads. “Over the river and through the woods to Grandmother’s house we go” … in a brand new 1960 GM car. “Arriving” at a posh resort in a new Park Lane or Grand Prix.
With cheap leases, cheap debt and buy here pay here lots on every corner, it’s easy to drive the dream. So, as you related: it’s impossible to know the “status” of the driver of any car.
I drive a dork mobile, The Onion [05 Saturn ION], which automatically makes me undateable, but I have zero debt of any sort and a mind at peace.
Another choice with a long list of reasons behind it’s purchase. But no consideration as to what the neighbors might think. It just didn’t compute.
Great essay, Ed. You’ve given it more thought than the average “enthusiast” .
You are right its impossible to know financial status these days… Unless it’s a “late” model s class or similar priced car. Case in point. My niece who is/was underemployed 1 yrs ago working at Starbucks as a barrista… Qualified and purchased a 2 yr old BMW 3 series. Yet me… Not rich by any means, but quite better off than my niece tools around in a 2008 KIA minivan.
Interesting. +1 Doug. I may in a passive aggressive way question ppls choices. Sometimes its lack of funds. But for the average 9-5 er… A car buy is multi faceted. Sure…rapore with salesman is in play. But other considerstions like car payments, warranty, fuel consumption, insurance costs will stray one from the car they want, to the car they end up with. I bot a KIA minivan in 2008… Still have it. Why? 3 kids and soccer. Why KIA? Warranty lower car payments and lowest insurance cost. And a fresh redesign… At that time. Do I wanna be driving it? No.
I can’t say that I disagree with you. My beef is with trucks. I like trucks, I even owned a Ranger as a daily driver from 1997-2002. However, I really get pissed at big old honking trucks, especially when driven by soccer moms. Why? Maybe because I drive small cars. Maybe I am just a grumpy old guy, and a misogynist, or maybe I am just sick and tired of people being so manipulated by marketing and hype to the point of driving an overpriced, underutilized utility vehicle when a sedan makes more sense. Better gas mileage, more space efficient, and cheaper, too. But, no, Suburban Sally needs to sit up high, in a 4 door pickup with 4WD, even if she never goes offroad farther than the mall parking lot. So what if the bed has been shortened to the point of uselessness, and that she can’t put anything in it should it be inclement weather. A CUV can be forgiven by me, but not so much a 4X4 quad cab pickup.
Rant complete. Thanks.
Well said, thank you. +1.
Why the push for self imposed austerity? If youre down on your luck, broke as hell and simply cant afford better than a frumpy sedan, then fine. I get having to suck it up and do whats necessary to scrape by. But if you can afford the vehicle you actually WANT…isn’t life way too damn short to be miserable? As someone who had to swallow his pride and drive a wretched pile of turd (’87 ford ranger) for a year, I know that it simply isn’t worth it.
I mentioned this below, but where exactly does a sedan ‘make the most sense’? There is no realistic scenario where a sedan is the best tool for the job. A hatch or wagon can see anything a sedan brings to the table and raise it with a more usable cargo area.
I haven’t called for austerity. Last time I checked, the Mercedes S class is a sedan, and it is not frumpy. I haven’t even stuck anyone in a sedan. I am not calling anyone out for driving something that they can afford. I am calling out someone trying to convince the world that they are in vogue due to driving what was once considered totally unfashionable. A friend (female) drove a full size older Ford pickup in the early 80s as an anti-establishment statement. Pickups were considered vehicles for farms and workmen, not college girls. Now, 35 years later, every college girl wants to drive an F150 and has no clue of the irony. And that same girl would not touch a sedan as it is not fashionable. So tell me, where is any sense in any of this?
Drive what you want, but stay out of my lane and get off my lawn!
Well you mentioned small, cheap and efficient. That doesn’t conjure up images of anything above an economy car. That said, I wouldn’t be caught dead in most Mercedes either. A Unimog , G-wagen and a coupe or 2 aside, that is. I just don’t care for their stuffy conservative styling. Give me an Audi 5 series or BMW 3 series (older, 2 doors) any day if I’m going German.
The difference is, a pickup is justified by its usefulness. If that isn’t fully capitalized on by its owner then so be it. But I subscribe to the ‘better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it’ mantra.
Wagon an hatchback selections are, in the US, quite limited-and I say this as a big station wagon fan. (Having owned five.)
Also, critically: most wagons and hatches have no secure storage.
Nothing is more secure than a pane of glass. Most hatches/wagons have a cargo cover. If you can break a window you can pop the trunk.
No, you’re missing the point. Anything carried in most hatchbacks is clearly VISIBLE. In a sedan, it is not.
My malfunction? A bad turn signal switch in my ’66 F-100. 🙂
Needless to say, humans’ emotional operating system tends to be all-too predominant compared to their rational operating system, and that’s certainly the case with cars, although CC seems to have perhaps a higher than average percentage of thrifty, practical sorts here. Maybe in small part because I’m like that? Birds of a feather….
Yes, the prejudices about cars is amazing and covers a huge range of permutations; too long to list here. The BOF vs unibody is one, as is FWD vs. RWD. And the hate on CUVs. And…
For me I guess it’s a newfound anti-establishmentism. I’ve always been very particular about what I drove, and whatever it might have been, it was chosen according to a specific set of parameters that made it the ideal choice at the time, and I’d argue vehemently with anyone who might dare to question my decision.
Now that I’m driving an 18 year old mid-sized sedan, in great shape, with under 70,000 miles on it that I paid next to nothing for as an “inheritance” I find myself getting very defensive about why this particular car is the best choice for the moment. (Mainly because it works, it costs me nothing, and in light of my limited annual mileage it’s got another 10 years left in it.) I’ve so indoctrinated myself into this new way of thinking that any time anyone I know buys or leases a new car with all the bells, whistles and high tech googaws that they come with, I’m tempted to get on my high horse and extoll the virtues of 90’s technology. As yet I have not given in to this temptation. As much as I’ve come to pride myself on this new practical approach to car ownership and armchair enthusiasm, I’d really rather not be “That Guy”. I’m already enough of a curmudgeon without another signature rant to add to my list.
Right Arm, MTM.
Always happy for anyone who gets something nice. Who wants to be the killjoy ?
Little Bro and SIL just bought a new Jeep renegade in Hyper Green. Cash. She’s never had a new car in her life. All sorts of electronic niceties.
Not something I would do, but they were both giddy when they came to pick me up at the garage where I had dropped off the 63 Valiant.
It didn’t provoke anything but positive feelings for them and nothing to convince me to trade my clean, 65,000 mile, 12 year old, well maintained, Ten Worst Automobiles Today award winner.
Nice rig, though. I hope it serves them well.
My malfunction? Trying to be patient with people who are not just like me. 🙂 Oh, you mean as to cars?
I guess it would be, um, impatience with rat rods or mods done to perfectly good old cars. Everyone wants to do “a build”. Chop out and weld in some modern suspension, a Chevy V8, a modern automatic, a modern Ford rear axle and a gutted and remodeled air conditioned and killer stereo-ed interior. And you have a custom-built modern car that looks kind of like a 34 Studebaker President. Grumble.
I have more patience with these cars if they are actually completed. As we know, there’s the first 90% done, then there’s the second 90%.
I have less patience for a formerly good old car with modern drive train roughed in, nowhere near complete for sale with “all the hard work done”
Oh, agree with JPC about mods that remodel, especially because the result is all-but never an improvement. Raymond Loewy, say, was an artist; Mr ’34 President is a highly-skilled tradesman, admirable but not comparable.
J P C : I’ve not heard that term ‘rat rods’ before. I did, however, look up the term ‘restomod’ after reading it on here a year or so ago and was curious. If so many bastardizers, sorry, ‘enthusiasts’ of old cars want to do “a build” and create their own restomodded machine how many un-messed-with old cars — let’s say model year 1980 and before — will still be around in another 15-20 years?
All these bastardized classic cars are ‘classic’ in body only. I’ve seen a number of them locally. They look good on the outside, but they don’t have their original ‘guts’. Technically primitive items original ‘car guts’ may be . . . but they ~are~ old vehicles. What else are they going to come with under the hood? ‘Restomods’ definitely aren’t my thing. I do not consider them ‘classic cars’. They are bastardizations of classic cars to me. How could a person get a REAL experience of driving an old car — for better or worse — when so much is changed under the hood and under the car?
Different strokes for different folks, Carter. You can hate on the various ways that old cars are used, but keep in mind that most of those car bodies would have been made into new LG washing machines by now if they weren’t used in the ways that you find offensive. Very few of us have the financial means to do a proper restoration, and once finished, you still have a car that just plain sucks to drive in most cases and certainly isn’t suitable for daily-driver or cross-country use.
My coworker just went through this. He spent six figures to restore a late 1950s Aston Marton (approximate value $750K), and once he finally was able to drive it, lamented how poorly it drove (his comments almost perfectly mirrored the auto magazine reviews from when the car was new – heavy steering, poor brakes, etc). Well duh! And he’s currently selling it because he’s scared to even have a car that valuable out on public roads at all.
If you want a perfectly-restored garage queen that you trailer to shows, fine. But for those who actually want to use their classic car on a more regular basis, why not rat rod or restomod? If you want the performance, economy, reliability, and safety of a modern sports car but with a classic look, there is no better way to do that than to put a classic Corvette shell onto a modern Corvette chassis.
We had two 1941 Chevrolets when I was growing up – one was my first car (which I started converting into a mild daily-driveable street rod but never completed) and one was all-original and in running condition. I drove the running one a few times and it was not fun – you couldn’t see out of it, the tiny side rear-view mirror was essentially useless, there were no seat belts, and it was not something I wanted to drive on the highway at all, mainly due to the weak brakes and vague steering.
My street rod was to have a Firebird rear end, Corvair (later Mustang II) front end, Chevy 283/Turbo 400, Buick Riviera power split front seats, Cadillac tilt/tele steering column, and under-dash aftermarket air conditioning, running on some Chevy Rally wheels with radial tires. It would have been a nice driver, and I was planning on undercoating it as well. Oh well, life happens!
To each his/her own. Due to my own financial and life circumstances, I wouldn’t mind having an old rat rod (something that I have less than $5K into but can take to the local old car meets with the family on summer Sundays) to scratch my old-car itch.
I’d like to thank the automotive press and all of the parrots who repeat everything that they say about the Chrysler 200. Because of all of their negativity I was able to buy a used 2013 200 Touring in 2014, with 34,000 miles for $12,000. It now has 90,000 miles on it. As for reliability, I’ve replaced a blend door actuator in the dash and a rear lateral link. $60 in parts total, labor was mine. Get rid of the Continental tires and run some nice Goodyears and it rides like a different car. It just passed Maine State inspection and the mechanic commented on what good shape it is in. They are good cars.
Sounds like you’ve been doing a lot of touring in your 3 yrs. of ownership, Mr. Hardboiled Maine Resident. 🙂
Approx. 18,633 miles per year covering three years and 56,000 miles of driving.
While I don’t “hate” CUV’s, I used to think they are not what many people think they are (they are not SUV’s) so I was a bit dismissive of them and their owners, even though I would consider an AWD CUV myself if I lived in a snowy area. But very recently, I realized that as they become more car-like they really are just cars, of a slightly different shape, and the transition form sedan to CUV as the mainstream is no different than the transition from roadster or open touring car in the Model T era, to all-steel four door sedan 20 years later. My malfunction? It is pretty elitist … I can’t understand people driving expensive/large/gas-guzzling cars they can’t afford.
I kind of wish the term “tall wagon” had caught on for them instead of “crossover” (which makes no sense for what is increasingly the default car). We’re at the point where we can drop the “tall” part and just call them “wagons” and the remaining sedan-height ones could go by the retronym “low wagon”.
For whatever reason, “wagon” is considered to be a poisonous showroom word. That’s why Toyota built a Venza instead of a Camry wagon.
My neighbor leased a Venza some years ago and I rode in it several times. I remember being quite impressed….very comfy and rode nice and quiet. Surprised it never caught on.
Crossovers are, of course, the modern era’s wagons. And I think we have two things to thank for that–successful lifestyle marketing, and the fact that their tall, upright stature is friendly to aging boomers as well as car-seat-wrangling parents. I’ve tended to be very crotchety towards them because the lifestyle part of it has always seemed particularly hollow to me–Look! I’m fun, adventurous and vital because my vehicle could conceivably go off-road! Also because I quite like wagons, and the minivan basically killed them then the crossover threw dirt on the coffin. But the practicality angle has more and more allure over time–I’ve gotten really damn tired over the years of not being able to fit things into our succession of sedans and coupes. Not to mention, I’ll freely admit that I don’t want to drive a minivan, which makes me just as much of a lifestyle hypocrite as those who view their CUVs as an accessory to their personality.
So when one lands in our driveway later this year (that decision has already been made, the question is just “which one?”) I can’t complain too loudly. But a small part of me still hates the idea.
Trucks just to drive trucks.
The husband of my daughter’s babysitter has at least 4 or 5 trucks of various ages and configurations titled to his name at any one time.
Shall we drive the square 80s GMC 4×2? The lifted bro-truck crew cab 4×4 diesel? The Z71 extended cab Chevy that’s more or less bone stock except the mismatched fender?
Trucks have taken over for where the affordable pony cars used to be. Yes, the ponies are the best they’ve ever been but also moved upscale. Outside of a pickup (and a scant few sports utilities) where else can you find an affordable V8 rwd vehicle that’s easy to personalize?
That’s the way I think about truck as well.
Where do you find an affordable new truck?
A basic extended cab pick up cost north of 40K around here
Late model used ones are all over the place. Being of the tried and true rwd understressed V8 persuasion means that even 200K models aren’t to be dismissed if theyre well kept.
I’m not sure I would say I hate Crossovers, and by extension their owners, but having learned to drive on a 49 Plymouth I find it comical that folks want what I believe is the most notable “feature” of that big, old sedan: lots of bulk tied up with a high seating position.
I also have to admit I don’t know what to think about something like the Chevrolet Spark Activ. If you haven’t seen 1 yet, Google it. It’s 1 car manufacturer’s (and Chevy is not the 1st to do this), attempt to expand the market share “enjoyed” by a mediocre car. It has several of the styling cues of CUVs, but is FWD only.
Ah yes, the Spark Activ…
…proof that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I want!!! I miss my old one
Perhaps my malfunction is being a contrarian of sorts who will stick his finger in the beehive.
Living in the center of a state that is smack-dab in the middle of the Midwest, everybody has a pickup regardless of income. They are the most useful vehicles for our Midwestern lifestyle and they are everywhere. Looking out the window into the parking lot at work, in one row I see two F-150s, two Silverados, an Expedition, and Colorado, a Ram, and some nondescript CUV. That’s it. And that’s who we are.
My point? My malfunction is all the griping about pickups by people who simply have no need for one. I’m not griping about your vehicle, am I? 🙂
Ed, there is one thing I ask you to clarify…I have no clue what “Con Ed” is. Abbreviations in which I have no clue aren’t my malfunction!
Consolidated Edison, Inc. It’s the utility company for NYC, Westchester, Rockland and Orange counties.
Thank you! I suspicioned it was a utility company.
Consolidated Edison, an energy company that provides most of the electricity and gas to NYC & Westchester County.
OK, Jason, challenge accepted.
I lived just north of Indianapolis for a few years, and yes, there were a lot of pickups. This was 2005-2009. The parking lot for the phone company in Westfield off 31 had a mix of vehicles, but cars outnumbered pickups by far.
But go back in the archives 40 years ago, and look at what was on the road in Indiana back then. Mostly sedans. Pickups have only become the in vogue fashion statement of the rural/suburban Mid-West in the last few years. Are they the most useful vehicle for the Midwestern lifestyle? Perhaps. But more likely, they are what the modern Midwesterner feels fashionable enough to be a lifestyle vehicle. Do the preponderance of 2WD pickups have any favorable attributes in snow over a FWD car? Are the average Midwesterners toting payload in the bed? Not from what I saw over 4 years. I am not really against pickup trucks, but I calls ’em as I sees ’em. They are fashion statements, not utility items. Same goes down here in Florida. If you need a truck, by God, get one and use it. But when it is a fashion statement versus a need, then it is nothing but a vanity item.
“But when it is a fashion statement versus a need, then it is nothing but a vanity item.”
So what if it is? If it puts a smile on your face when you drive it and you can afford the care and feeding…that’s all the justification anyone needs.
Agreed MR, but I don’t think it really brings that smile to the average pickup driver. I am all for doing whatever makes you happy, and if you are happy in a truck, more power to you. But how many soccer moms are really happy driving an oversized truck? I will admit to my bias, but I just don’t see many of the trucks being sold if we didn’t have them marketed as lifestyle vehicles. And a truck is no more a lifestyle choice as is air freshener. Useful, sure, but not used in any way intended. We make fun of Chinese millionaire kids in supercars driven slowly, yet we don’t laugh at suburbanites in trucks ready for the apocalypse.
I think many soccer moms feel more safe sitting up high in a bulky vehicle and that is part of the reason for their popularity.
…”They are fashion statements, not utility items”…
Fashion statement:
Bro-dozers in Europe? Learn something new every day.
I’ll be back.
It may be a fashion statement for rich playboys but it DOES have utility. Not taking advantage of said utility falls upon the owner…but that doesn’t invalidate that rigs strengths.
Utility items:
A few things I’m throwing out to ponder over. And, yes, I do see your perspective to a point. I wanted to say that up front.
First, we in the Midwest tend to be game hunters. If I go bag a deer (which I’ve never deer hunted, but I’m picture painting here), turkey hunting, go fishing, etc. do I haul the bloody carcass in the trunk of my Camry, Accord, Fusion, etc? No. That’s what a pickup is for.
Second, one of the frequent criticisms I hear about pickups is that it’s not loaded, which you allude to in your statement. Okay, what is the passenger capacity of your car? Four, five? How often are you hauling five people in your car? Do I have heartburn over you driving your car solo? No, I don’t. It’s the same sort of thing.
Also, how do you know these pickups aren’t loaded? I recently drove my F-150 Supercrew 4×4 for over a week with 800 pounds of bagged sand and cement in it as I had plans I had to postpone. Could you tell it was loaded? Nope. I had the tonneau cover over the bed to keep the cement dry.
The “modern Midwesterner” isn’t fashionable so much as practical. We need a pickup often enough to buy one. Most driveways here contain a sedan or CUV with a pickup. What sense does it make to have two sedans / CUVs in the driveway along with the pickup that is only used infrequently since it’s only a fashion accessory? None. And that’s why there are only two vehicles parked there, both practical and with purpose.
Your statement about fashion statements is judging others based upon your perception and experiences. Please notice how I’m not judging anything you do which is something that not both of us can claim.
I agree with your comments Jason. The area I live in sounds similar to yours and like your area pick-ups are very common. It seems every household has at least one. And the 4×4’s have pretty much become ubiquitous with our winters. While I can agree that pickups have become large, what people always forget is how much of that large size has gone into the cabs. The cabs are much roomier and more functional than any pickups of the previous generations. Adding a roomy cab, with 4×4, and a pickup box, albeit they have shrunk in size, results in one of the most versatile vehicles on the road today.
When I was growing up, when my dad had a then universal regular cab with 8 foot box. Camping/Cottage trips meant two vehicles, since pickup didn’t have enough seats for anyone. Now at least when we do the same today, I can pack the kids, the bikes, all the gear and pull the boat, all using just my truck. That said, out car is still our primary car for most situations. I try to use the truck only when we need it’s capabilities.
Mine, at the moment anyway, would be the enthusiast embrace for autonomous cars. Most people I know who genuinely hate the idea of AV tech don’t actually care about cars, but on enthusiast sites you’ll see a surprising number of proponents vehemently in support of the technology, under the guise of making the roads better for “us enthusiasts”. I personally see this as sewing the seeds of our own hobby’s demise, and even if there’s a grain of truth to the utopian vision they present in favor (where autonomous vehicles are no longer unpredictable obstacles for our fun cars to dodge and avoid), the passion and even anger they expel trying to convince us of this, only serves to divide us.
Crossovers too though. Proponents and owners will say over and over the practical advantages, ingress/egress, blah blah blah. Yet, based on my observations the actual needs of the owners driving them would be served by something as impractical as a Miata. Just admit CUVs are a fashion item and not a practical “need”.
I don’t really like CUVs, since theyre just not meant for people like me (gearheads). I used to hate them outright since they were the dumbed down and downgraded ‘replacement’ for vehicles like the XJ Cherokee, S-10 Blazers, 4Runners, Trooper, etc. which are capable offroaders. But the Wrangler has sprouted 2 more doors to pick that up, another Bronco is on its way, and the FJ Cruiser made its mark, 4 Runner is still there.
What the CUV is supplanting is midsize and compact sedans, which is a good thing. 4 doors and a trunk with fixed rear window has got to be the dumbest, most useless thing ever concocted. Large sedans with a good size trunk…ok fine. But the midsize and compact sedan is a worthless steaming pile of mediocrity. They drive like crap, look like crap, and make up for that with no unique ability whatsoever. Just a boring blob for boring, disinterested people. Good riddance. Larger rwd V8 sedans have some presence and offer some kind of prestige which results in pride of ownership, so theyre justified. A small hatch offers a more versatile configuration than a sedan. Wagons and CUVs offer everything a sedan does but with better packaging, open cargo areas and better weather capability with awd. Coupes offer superior style, and are the best platform for performance cars due to less weight and a stronger body structure.
Am I the only person who hates the aesthetics and function of the 2 box hatchback? Maybe it’s irrational but I just don’t like having my stuff displayed behind glass. And there truly is nothing more stupid than when I see someone driving cross country in their hatchback with their stuff stacked all the way up to the headliner, cutting off all rear visibility. I like trunks, puts my junk out of sight and I like the aesthetics of a trunk and the roofline variation it allows, rather than a flat wall.
I’m about the last person to give a crap about 4 door sedans mind you, but again, the only way you can find to defend the CUV, and by extension the 2 box hatchback bodystyle, is to extol the virtues of cargo ability. I’m saying if you never use more than 50% of that capability, you don’t need this vehicle. Peace of mind that you can if you had to is as irrelevant as performance stats in the real world.
I feel the same way about 4 door sedans btw. If you’re childless, which is sizable chunk of the population, having 4 doors is completely unnecessary.
Believe me, yes, it’s irrational. But then coming from you, that’s quite rational. 🙂
There are many reasons…one being the awkwardly-long doors on many coupes. Another being, sedan bodies tend to be stiffer. (This was especially notable with Neons and Cavaliers.) I like rear doors because I tend to put stuff (groceries, luggage, etc.) in the rear seat.
Fair enough, as someone who’s driven a coupe with possibly the biggest heaviest doors ever(MN12 Cougar), I can attest to that. But in terms of my needs it’s served my fine, including putting groceries in the rear seat, which I also like to do.
Me pointing out a certain configuration is unnecessary for your lifestyle isn’t me telling you what you should be driving for your situation. On the contrary. I just wish we could freely make an emotional choice in a major purchase without all the rationalization and need to explain ourselves to our peers.
Most all hatches/wagons have some kind of cargo cover that hides anything you have inside. If someone wants in your sedan, its a shattered window away. If you just don’t like the looks of a 2 box then that’s personal taste.
I was waiting for someone to mention the cargo cover, with it in use it’s virtually no different than a real trunk, the difference is the trunk lid(cargo cover) is inside. As for theft, It’s window shopping. If you were a criminal and saw something you think is valuable in the hatch cargo area to the right, while a seemingly empty sedan is to your left, which one are you going to risk the felony on, the mystery box? lol
It is exactly personal taste, I like three-box designs more. Just as Paul said a few posts down, somebody has to defend them, right?
A while back I was having a conversation with my niece (while driving to the parts store to replace her ’95 Tercel starter). She asked me why I still drive my 31 year old Jetta when I could easily afford to drive newer. We were in my Titan at the time, I told her remember the time when she was 15 (back in 1996) I let her drive the Jetta (after having her shift the 5 speed transmission while I drove for a while), as she struggled to keep the car in it’s lane on dead straight I-5. She smiled, I asked her if she recalled the time I picked her up in San Diego when we were heading off to Portland (along with a nephew and another niece) to say good by to my sister (her Mom) in hospice. A tear rolled down her cheek. She also remembered the blow out I got (with her in the car) in the rainstorm and sliding on 2 wheels across the freeway, crashing into the muddy berm, and the second flat we got at 2:00am in the wrong part of town a few miles later.
My parents, sister, a couple of good friends as well who have now passed all traveled in the old Jetta as well. From ’91 until the end of ’08 when I gave up on the daily commute in both LA and later PDX area the old car was my daily ride back and forth to work and served me well.
My answer was the memories and the fact the car has been durable and easy on gas, and has good seats and ride even on long trips. It still looks good, paint and interior have held up well and even at over 300k the drivetrain is still in good shape and runs well. When I want to road trip I use my truck (bought new in 2004 and only at 16k miles today). It’s comfortable and safe for highway driving, and for home and rental upkeep that bed in the back is really useful.
And my cheap, er, I mean economical approach to car transportation is kind of fun, doing repairs myself and sourcing low priced parts does give a sense of satisfaction when the job is done. And I have been able to support myself since ending the daily grind at age 52 by investing in 2 homes which by this time were both paid for. I value my free time and debt free status a lot more than driving a new expensive car.
She now understood my malfunction, and smiled.
A wonderful, well-thought out answer that brings also a tear to my eye. Good for you!
Thanks, I appreciate your understanding and reply.
CC is my favorite website and the people who comment and blog on it are a great group.
I drive aCUV because station wagon aren’t produced enough to be viable on the secondary market. Had a2001 olds Aurora work 210k miles and it was great, but wasn’t well suited for some of our needs. So we moved to a crossover.
Not the most exciting, but a higher end model. And it’s 10 years old with 103k as of yesterday. Bought it in 12/16 with 96k. I’m not a new car buyer.
I’d like to point out another American rear-drive 4-door sedan that’s knocking on the door of the mainstream, the Tesla Model 3, which started production this week. At $35K even without the EV tax breaks, it’s right near the $33K median US new vehicle price. Once it’s up to full production in a couple years it’ll start merging into the mainstream.
I bring it up also because the only “malfunction” I have with my FWD electric Fiat 500e is its torque steer on turns, which makes it prone to peel out on sudden turning acceleration, like jumping from an urban side street into a faster main street (whose parked cars block the view of traffic until you’re committed.) I’m sure there are torquey FWD cars that handle this better, but there’s a reason all Teslas drive their rear wheels. It’s easy to handle all that 0-rpm electric torque. Electric motors are small, so rear motor RWD is the best layout for an EV.
I guess the thing that grinds my gears is the whole argument of “Why do you need that?”
This argument drives up a wall, and it’s not just related to cars. If I can be a pedantic little bugbear for a moment, if you break humanity down to brass tacks, all the average person “needs” is food, water, and shelter. Everything else is merely a want in some capacity or another. So, I get a little peeved when someone buys something and the first thing someone asks is “why do you NEED that?” Not only do I find it a projection of that individual’s own insecurities, it creates a very toxic mindset of what I call “False Justification Syndrome”. Basically, people will justify whatever they purchased, no matter how irrational or untrue that justification might be, just to silence any and all potential naysayers.
I see this all the time when it comes to certain people, and certain car enthusiast. “Why do you NEED to drive an SUV? A sedan would work fine. Why do you NEED to drive an expensive car? Get something cheap. Why do you NEED to drive a Ferrari or a Rolls Royce? Wouldn’t a Toyota suffice?” The truth is, no, if you were to put it to the basics, I don’t NEED it. But, it’s what I like and I WANT to drive it.
Well that stop me from making snide comments toward certain people because of the cars they drive? Not really, I am a flawed person after all. But I am tired of this argument that a car is a NEED, and you should buy what you NEED. A car is a want, driving is a privilege, not a right, and as long as I’m not hurting anybody, my personal life and what I do with it is none of your concern.
No, not everyone should be driving certain vehicles. Lord knows that I see some drivers on the road that should be barred from driving anything that’s taller than Camry. But, as far as I’m concerned, as long as people are not going broke from their decisions, they can drive whatever they want.
So no, I don’t really NEED to drive something like a Mercedes Benz S Class, or a Lincoln Navigator, or a 1966 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, or even a Rolls Royce Phantom. However, I will drive it, because it’s what I like and I WANT to drive it. And honestly, if I’m not a reckless driver, and I can afford to keep it insured, repaired, and filled up with gas, what I drive should be of no great concern to anybody.
Sorry for that rather long rant, but it’s something I feel strongly about and I needed to get it off my chest.
I agree, man. Basically what youre saying is its youre money and youll damn well spend it how you please. Which is spot on.
What irks me is that people who push for eco friendly or economical cars always seem to try to passive aggressively bully others into being on that same wagon. And its not that they think their choice of vehicle is so great, its that they virtue signal, and think they know whats best for everyone else. Talk to a gearhead who owns a muscle car, sportscar, Jeep or pickup. They’ll tell you all day how much they love their ride and how awesome it is. They may even offer to let you drive or try it out. But theres no pressure. As one of the latter, I think its an aspirational thing to drive something you love. I think more people should have the OPPORTUNITY and the drive to do so. But if ‘everyone’ did that, then it wouldn’t be so special or feel as good. I mean to truly appreciate something good, there has to be a lot of real mediocre garbage in the mix to set the perspective. If your work parking lot was full of Hellcats it would be no big deal. But in a sea of dishwater beige cammaccords and blobby cuvs, it really casts a light on how cool that really is. JMO.
People do that with safety too, for those of us who drive 20+ year old cars “death trap” isn’t an uncommon utterance. Even like minded enthusiasts will be bugged when you say you drive it every day, rather than just on weekends.
I don’t like expressions like “mediocre garbage” anymore for that reason, because the old cars I absolutely love qualify as that just from the old unrefined tech standpoint, and proponents of the march of technology will willfully point that out if I dare say those words about a Corolla. Every time there’s a vintage review, there’s always the comment “that muscle car only did 0-60 in 7 seconds, what a pos, Camry’s can do that!”, and my response is simply a dismissive, who cares. What I like about old cars, even if they don’t handle, brake or even accelerate as well, is the visceral driving experience of a machine that feels mechanical, that is way more enjoyable to me on a regular driving basis than outright performance prowess on the rare opportunity I’d fully wind it out to hit all the promised stats.
The reason some folks point point out the capabilities of the Camry (like I have on occasion here) is for one reason only: because so many like you and MoparRocker endlessly point out what “mediocre garbage” they are. It’s just a reaction to the endless hate certain cars endure online. Somebody has to defend them, right?
It’s not really about comparing them to performance cars of the past, like pointing out that a Camry V6 is quicker than a Countach, but just to counter the endless comments about how lame they are and lacking in any qualities that might make them enjoyable to drive. I can assure you than anyone who’s ever driven a Camry SE V6 won’t be making comments like that.
Of course they won’t, nobody who drives a SE V6 Camry would go to a website about cars!
Seriously though, I was trying to make that exact point, not parrot moparrocker’s choice of words or even his point(only a few points I agree with, main of which I added to). Mediocre garbage is way too easy to refute in the same way the way you did with the Countach article, which is why I’m more inclined to call a Camry what it is to me, boring and lame, which is a purely subjective choice of words. I find Corvettes boring and lame too, has nothing to do with raw numbers at the end of the day.
Well, no less than the great and mighty boy-racer Jack Baruth said that he would have bought a Camry XSE V6 intead of the Accord he bought if it had been available with a manual. He’s been quite glowing in his praise. And he’s not the only one.
Its almost a tradgedy Toyota detuned the engine and lifted the gearing for their world Camry imagine how differently gearheads would rate them with a top speed of 240kmh and the ability to smoke the tyres at 150kmh when you stomp the gas, no the handling on the development model wasnt exactly Peugeot like but the were really fast, too fast as it turns out.
I’m curious, had I said “that muscle car only did 0-60 in 7 seconds, what a pos, Fusion can do that!”, would we be having this debate?
Because my point had absolutely nothing to with Camry’s, in fact I even acknowledged the fact that they are faster and better in every measurable way than the old cars I’d rather have. It was a throwaway name I picked simply because it’s a modern mainstream car to make a point you completely missed, and are still missing(in what world do you think I care about Jack Baruth’s opinion, or that him being a boy racer is relatable to my tastes?) You saw one of the commenters who you often disagree with say *mediocre garbage* and *Toyota* in the same post and thought “ugh, there he goes again, bashing Toyota!” and came running to their defense. It’s unnecessary
“The reason some folks point point out the capabilities of the Camry (like I have on occasion here) is for one reason only: because so many like you and MoparRocker endlessly point out what “mediocre garbage” they are. It’s just a reaction to the endless hate certain cars endure online. Somebody has to defend them, right? ”
‘
NO, no one ‘has’ to defend anything. If you truly love those cars then have at it, but if youre just being adversarial for the sake of arguing…seems a bit petty to me. I’m hard pressed to find one thing a top level Camry can do that a base level Charger or 300 cant. Difference is, max out your options and well…you know….
MR: For someone who complains about “virtue signaling” you sure do spend a lot of time, energy and words ranting endlessly here (that’s mostly what you’ve done here for some 5 years) about how superior your preferred choice of hot V8 RWD truck/vehicle is and how incredibly stupid sedans are and their drivers, never mind the Prius and such. I’ve had to edit your vitriol aimed at the Prius and its drivers on numerous occasions.
The pot calling the kettle black.
I made no mention of those drivers. In the past, yes…and you pointed out why that’s unacceptable. I looked inward and realized that was a valid criticism, so Ive curbed that. So why are you whining about that now?
Yeah, I criticized sedans for offering no unique advantage. Prove that wrong, otherwise what are we bickering about?
You are correct, any car choice is a want, not a need. However, just like everyone can and will judge me on my choices, I can and will judge you on yours. It is human nature. We try to convince others that our ideas are superior, or are convinced by others that their choice is better. Discrimination is the act of choosing one over the other, not treating all as the same. That does not make discrimination a bad thing. We choose, and hopefully it is the best choice for our own needs. And since they are the best for us, we tend to assume it would be the best for others. The trick is letting others do as they want, and only sniping in the company of sympathetic ears, or at least to those willing to debate in good will. Sort of like what we do here.
+1
First of all, I really like those Detroit themed Chrysler commercials. It shows a lot of pride in the city, in the working people that built modern industrial America, and the American Dream that we lived through our automobiles. Blue collar built the country. Respect to Eminem for lending his name to the series. (Not that I listen to his music, but I know who he is.)
My rant is all those smug people who applauded the announcement that Tesla was valued higher than Ford. Yeah, I know it came down to stock valuation. Tesla is the future that the new yuppies embrace, Ford represents what your old school grandparents embrace. What has Tesla really built? An electric car.Those are not anything new. (Yes, they are the best electric car, eve! I know about their solar energy systems etc.) Detroit and the American auto industry and working Americans, built the “Arsenal of Democracy” that gave the free world it’s victory in WWII. Never Forget.
I know the world is changing, that we live in a post industrial society,that new approaches are needed in an evolving world, etc. but can a software industry be converted overnight into a airplane factory?
You do realize that WW2 was 70 years ago? And that if a war broke out today, it will not be anything remotely like it? It will either be a regional conventional conflict, for which we are reasonably equipped for, or it will be nuclear. In that case, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.
And given that the overwhelming cost of modern military airplanes is in their high technology, not the airframe and engines, if it came down to it, the answer to your final question is not so easy to answer. Let’s just say we’re not going to be converting car factories to build super complex composite airplanes, unless the military wants to bring back the B17.
Indeed. For one thing, there is so much computer technology directly involved in the actual stick-to-flap controls of a modern fighter that the software industry is an airplane factory. “Digital flight control systems enable inherently unstable combat aircraft, such as the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk and the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit flying wing to fly in usable and safe manners” says Wikipedia. Not to mention navigation, comms, weapons, radar, etc.
This picture from the Wikipedia avionics article shows an F‑105 Thunderchief with its avionics laid out. And that was thirty years ago.
Forgive me for getting carried away a bit, but now that Jose brought it up, today’s avionics tech is knocking me out,
Military-today.com says about today’s F-22 Raptor: “The core of the offensive avionics is provided by the APG-77 multi-mode radar and a side-mounted phased-array radar. The highly integrated avionics systems also include a data-link, inertial navigation system with embedded GPS for high-accuracy navigation, and advanced electronic warfare, warning and countermeasures systems. Two central computers manage the automatic switching of the sensors between completely passive and wholly active operation, according to the tactical situation.
“Artificial intelligence algorithms fuse data from the sensors and present only relevant information to the pilot to reduce workload while at the same time improving tactical awareness. The datalink allows tactical information to be shared with other F-22s. It is worth mentioning, that many of sensors and avionics of this plane remain classified.”
Wow…..a WWII radar tech like my dad was would have thought this was an alien UFO.
Very rarely do I judge people by what they drive, unless I know the circumstances. THEN I can be as judgmental as anyone. As just one example, I went through a string of old beaters at one point, even though I could certainly afford something much nicer. Disposable cars can be both fun and useful, and anyone who saw me solely as what I drove that particular week would not have gotten an accurate reading, to put it mildly.
My (admittedly not very original) pet peeves are as follows, in no particular order:
– suburban housewives barely able to see over the wheel of their huge pickup truck
– nice old cars cut up into customs that look just like every other cookie cutter cut up custom
– smug millennials spouting environmental BS and proud not to even have a license, but happy enough to mooch rides from their friends at every opportunity
I have nothing against CUVs, which I see as a return to pre- longer-larger-lower era designs and simply the new normal. I also have nothing against rat rods built from junk not subject to restoration, large trucks actually being utilized, and so on.
+1 on the old beater chain
I had a Pontiac for years. It was old when I bought it.
Wrecked 3 times never fixed.
Followed by 2 Hyundais that cost a total of $500. One was really beat up and noisy
I have a decent blue collar job and live in a decent neighborhood.
I can afford a decent car I just don’t want a payment. And those cars were a blast to drive.
Agree with “smug millennials spouting environmental BS and proud not to even have a license”. But then say “where is that Uber I ordered to go to the bars!”
Anyway, mine is being a bit too anal with car facts. “No that isn’t a 1969!” etc….
And regarding constant clamoring for ‘bring back big RWD cars’, keep dreaming.
“Comfort” is now 3 row SUV’s. And people with money for a ‘fun car, go for vintage cars.
My malfunction is wishing that we could return to the days of great automotive color choices. Part of what I love about cars/trucks/SUVs/CUVs etc. is the variety of vehicle types available–something for just about every taste or need–but then they all seem to be painted black/grey/white with black/grey/beige inside. Luxury cars are the worst offenders, which is ironic since they afford the opportunity for people to be the most expressive, yet they are the most conformist.
The trend to no color worries me in the long run, because I think it signals a potentially irreversible shift to vehicle=appliance for mainstream buyers (certain brands like Mini or models like Wrangler still provide color and character, but they are now the exception and not the norm). Refrigerators are mostly white or stainless or occasionally black and no one cares–they are just supposed to blend in and do their job. Not the way to incite passion and make a statement. And when cars become more autonomous, even more of the uniqueness vanishes. I’ve never wanted to drive my fridge (or for the future ahead, be driven by my fridge). So I see the color-free vehicle landscape as the canary in the coal mine for interchangeable, government-approved mobility appliances (urban commuter pod, family hauler pod, cargo hauler pod), in cheap, medium-priced and expensive variants, and all about as interesting as oatmeal.
Yes, bring back avocado and Harvest Gold appliances! And pink bathroom fixtures! 🙂
I just got rid of a harvest gold kitchen. I really hope that doesn’t come back
I still have a Brady Bunch 1/2 bath in 1975 orange and brown. I keep it this way just for the retro effect. I did ashcan the full baths pink toilet and vanity, though.
At this point…it might be a refreshing change from a choice between white/gray/silver/black/fancy name for dark gray. To get a Corolla that was an actual color, my mother had to have one transferred from a different state! The dealer had a dozen…all white or silver.
Appliance White or Prestige Appliance Silver, no doubt! 🙂
My shack in Van Nuys had the original 1947 aqua and maroon tile work in the kitchen. The house was 60 years old when I bought it and I never changed it for the 12 years I lived there.
The condo I had before that had dark brown tile work and knotty pine cabinetry, equally immaculate.
Both those aspects were among the reasons I bought them.
BFF had to talk me out of getting a wringer washing machine when I bought the house in the Valley, though.
A friend has a vintage hi rise condo on Lake Shore that still has all the tacky 70s accoutrements, including Harvest Gold appliances, and I have to admit the color is growing on me again. I attribute it as a 70s-80s kid to part nostalgia, part dementia.
I actually agree with you on almost everything Edward except your remark on the Chrysler 200. Had the fellow bought a Sebring, I’d be nodding my head, but the 200 redesign actually made the car quite decent. I have no idea why the car continued to be a whipping boy for every automotive media outlet as the only major flaw the car continued to have was a relatively course four-cylinder engine. I wouldn’t even say the car was “decent… because it was so cheap” or “decent… if you buy it used”. It was just a decent car, period.
I get tired of the crossover hate too. If we were talking about everyone driving BOF SUVs, yeah, I’d mock them. But crossovers come so, so, so much closer to passenger cars in terms of fuel economy and they do offer a lot more practicality. I’m not rushing to buy one but I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t considered one in the past. You’re right about advising people not to think of the body style but to think of the brand, and using Nissan as an example is spot-on. There’s a brand that’s doing nothing for me lately but has been hitting its stride with sales. Goes to show what enthusiasts like isn’t always what the average person wants.
I grow extremely weary of people who hold onto Hyundai/Kia prejudices. An Optima is as good as a Camry, in fact probably better. An Elantra is as good as a Corolla. In fact, refreshingly, Hyundai and Kia have really cemented themselves here in Australia. I’ve mentioned before but the outgoing Elantra GT (i30), I know about 5 people who have one, more than any other single car model. I do think it’s fair to apply more scrutiny to Genesis models as they’re playing in a higher field and, look, they’re not perfect. Fuel economy is something Hyundai will really have to work on, as well as weight. But I’m excited for the new compact Genesis G70, and I’ve been so excited for the Kia Stinger. So there you go, a consistently good mainstream lineup and now some exciting, more niche models. Hyundai/Kia have made it.
Two more things really bother me.
One, the “all new cars look the same” argument. I’m not going to rehash it, it’s been argued to death, nobody will ever change their minds, let’s just never mention it again. Haha.
Two, the idea that because Cadillac passenger car sales are flagging, that Johan de Nysschen is a complete dolt and all plans for new Cadillacs should be scrapped and they should bring back a bench-seat Brougham and be rewarded with instant sales from people who “get it” and know what a Cadillac should be. There’s just so many things wrong with this reductive argument. “Cadillac was successful years ago when it did this. If we make them do this again, they will be successful now. Yay!”
People use this argument when sales don’t immediately skyrocket. What people don’t realise is establishing yourself as a global, top-tier luxury brand when BMW has been the default choice for decades is something that takes time. And GM enthusiasts are sometimes the worst at this… They see two years’ worth of “bad” CTS sales – ok, it’s not selling great, but it’s still selling better than all non-German rivals – and they think it should just be yanked. And GM is chasing greater profits, not greater volume anyway, and their ATPs have risen. I don’t want them falling back into an incentives hole once again.
The worst was the vitriol when Cadillac moved its HQ to NYC. Why was THAT something to get angry about? In Brock Yates’ Rise and Fall, he spent an entire chapter excoriating GM executives for being all cut of the same cloth, all living and shopping and eating and spending time in the same places in Michigan. He had a point. You want Cadillac to make inroads against BMW and Mercedes, it’s not a bad idea to move your offices to somewhere where people actually buy BMWs and Mercedes.
Cadillac’s transformation will take time. They haven’t been perfect. The Escalade needs greater differentiation and refinement, they need a range of crossovers YESTERDAY, and they need to do a better job of actually advertising their cars. But I have faith in de Nysschen and I believe Cadillac will continue to rise. It helps their cars are actually really bloody good. But no let’s just stop basically 15 years of progress and bring back the Coupe de Ville. While Cadillac would benefit from a big sedan/coupe with a lot of presence, like the Elmiraj concept, that’s not what some of these “Cadillac fans” are clamouring for. Their vision of the brand seems to be a return to the 60s which, yes, was a great time for Cadillac. But they forget coupes are far, far less popular today. Sedans are withering in the glare of crossovers, which didn’t exist back then.
Oh, one final thing. I hate, hate, hate the use of the term “virtue signal” and I’ve noticed it really starting to appear in comments sections, forums, etc. It’s one of those really condescending terms that sounds like it was born on the internet, like white knight, snowflake, SJW, etc etc. Even if the person using it is making a valid point, that term really just makes me want to switch off.
Speaking of the crossover hate. I remember once a page about SUV hate, not exactly hate but a more satiric view of the SUV. Thanks to the folks who archived it on the Wayback Machine, here the links. https://web.archive.org/web/20040103070901/http://poseur.4×4.org/
https://web.archive.org/web/20031206064744/http://poseur.4×4.org/futuresuv.html
Virtue signal has definitely become a cliché, even if the concept is accurate. Not just with car choice, but with many things, people make choices based on wanting others to think of them as righteous.
Just had to google v.s. to find out what it meant.
William, I agree with a lot of what you posted here. Especially the comments about Cadillac. There’s an axiom that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It took balls to move Cadillac away from the “home” base in Michigan. If nothing else, they’re doing something different. I think the line up is the strongest in sedans that it’s ever been in my lifetime. They need some SUV/CUVs to compete better in the market, as it seems that’s where it’s going.
99.99% commenting on how Johan is running the Division have no experience at the C-suite level of any business much less the auto business. OTOH, I’ve criticized Sergio Marchionne numerous times, so I guess I’m as much a hypocrite as the folks I call out.
Several years ago when fuel prices were really high (for us in the ‘States) I criticized a colleague for driving a big 4×4 pickup truck everywhere. I saw it as wasteful, but he explained to me that his non-work hobbies are hunting, boating and fishing in the deep woods and two-track trails. He frequently would bring his two sons and sometimes another friend or two. Clearly, he was not going to accomplish this in a Prius or even an Equinox. In addition, he didn’t need/want to own another vehicle since this one covered so many activities for him.
I’ve since learned to think before criticizing anyone for their vehicular choices. I look at my choices over the years and there are plenty of places one could say that “this is wasteful” or this is “not a good application”. Live and learn.
A few years ago I got a bottom of the line Hyundai coupe (Accent, maybe?) for a rental. A little tin can of a car, not real comfortable or capable. But what a fun little car to just scoot around in, rowing the gears on the manual box. The driving experience reminded me of all the cheap little Toyotas and Mazdas of my distant past. Mechanically very connected but with very low limits. I can pretty much afford what I want, and would have easily bought one of them for my daily driver, had it not been so small. I want a big, solid vehicle around me for safety reasons, and that was the only real world drawback of the thing. So the cars of my youth are still around. You just need to look around for them.
My problem with Cadillac is probably age-related(mine..I’m 70). I always knew what a Coupe Deville, Sedan Deville etc. was. I have no clue what an XTS or CT- whatever is.
oh…and get off my lawn!
My malfunction, I have to admit, has been a prejudice against purchase of foreign cars that goes back to the 80’s when I was a teenager. Both my worldview and the auto industry have changed a lot since then, but I still find myself thinking in that paradigm sometimes.
I would associate all things patriotic and good with our country with buying an American car. The opposite, naturally, also applied: anybody who bought a foreign car was a little bit suspect. My prejudice was complicated and didn’t always make a lot of sense. It was partly rooted in rational concern about the decline in American industry and harm to the economy. Also, as a long time WWII buff, I found it disturbingly ironic that our former enemies were strengthening their economies by inducing Americans to harm ours. Finally, as an old car lover, I have always been most interested in cars from the glory years of American cars, when the cars were bold, stylish and generally well put together and the industry was the envy of the world. By the 80’s when I was becoming car conscious, the cars and the industry were pale comparisons, but I blamed much of that on the foreign car invasion and by implication on anyone who bought one.
I think, now, that the world is not so black and white. People acting in their own economic interest by buying the best car they can for the money is not a bad thing. U.S. makers were responsible for much of their demise and the foreign companies forced them to drastically increase the quality of their vehicles. With foreign nameplates built in the U.S. and U.S. nameplates built with over 50% foreign parts, the line between foreign and domestic is greatly blurred.
I never did own a foreign car until I got married, when my wife came with a Hyundai Tucson. We replaced that recently with a new Santa Fe, so I have now spent my own personal money on a foreign car (made in Korea, even). I also own a Ford and a Buick and have to admit that I am still not comfortable driving anything besides an American car for my personal vehicle. Old feelings die hard.
My malfunction is Dodge cars. A friend got burned on a 3 year old Dodge Neon. Total basket case.
I saw so many Chrysler products that just didn’t hold up.
I tried to give them a chance in 2005 when I was looking for a new car. The ones I test drove had 30-45K miles and just felt like cheap junk ( these were the mid size cars)
I still cringe at the thought. I do have an 03 Dodge Ram that has been a great truck.
But I still won’t walk on to a car lot and consider anything that comes from Chrysler
The true car nut loves any mechanized vehicle …
As for Camry, the 2018 Camry L is rated 29 city, 41 highway. Diesel-like efficiency from a gas engine … That’s without turbo and without hybrid tech … The Camry Hybrid LE is rated 51 city 53 highway.
Admirable engineering prowess no matter how you look at it.
I will probably set off a powderkeg with this one but my major malfunction is with the government wanting to decide what kind of cars we drive.
Yes, safety regs and environmental regs are good to a point, but I get tired of being told by some (sn) ivel servant that my choice of vehicle is not for the common good and unless I volunteer to be driven around in some autonomous blob they will do their best to regulate me into that car because “they” think they know best.
Can there not be a happy medium between the two sides of this coin ?
And yes, I know this argument has been going on since the first car was invented and someone in authority said
“It is new and exciting and people are dumb and don’t know better so let us tell them all about it” but you guys asked!
What in the world is making you think that “the government wanting to decide what kind of cars we drive.”?
I get tired of being told by some (sn) ivel servant that my choice of vehicle is not for the common good and unless I volunteer to be driven around in some autonomous blob
Where do you get that idea from? The government has done nothing to promote or introduce autonomous cars. That’s strictly coming from all of the various car companies and other new ventures. The government is struggling to figure out how to regulate them properly.
Never has the American car buyer had a wider range of choices. And the fact that pickups are by far the best selling vehicles, and that big SUVs and CUVs are selling like hot cakes, while efficient cars languish just goes to prove that your concern is very much not the case.
the fact that pickups are by far the best selling vehicles, and that big SUVs and CUVs are selling like hot cakes, while efficient cars languish just goes to prove that your concern is very much not the case.
Do you think this would be the case if not for CAFE? The light truck exploit was an unintended consequence, granted, but this law most definitely had a real and lasting effect on what people had available to drive from the moment it was enacted, for better or worse.
CAFE started in 1978, but didn’t begin to make a serious impact for several more years. Pickups and SUVs were already on a major growth trajectory in the mid-late 70s. The second energy crisis and the resultant over-done downsizing was the result of gas prices and their projected future growth more than CAFE. When gas suddenly dropped starting in 1982, folks started gobbling up trucks and SUVs with a greater vengeance. They were cool. The dorky, downsized cars weren’t.
In the 1980s and early 90s, big SUV cars and trucks were of course still for sale. And what was their sales trajectory. A steady decline. How well did the CV and MGM and Town Car sell in their latter years?
Consumer taste invariably changes. The truck/SUV thing is a direct development of the 60s, when it wasn’t cool to be like your parents and drive a conventional car. Sports cars, trucks, mini-trucks, Jeeps, vans; anything different. The whole explosion in trucks and SUV/CUVs all trace back to that. CAFE had a relatively minor role.
I assure you if the market had or were demanding big conventional cars, the manufacturers would figure out a way to make and sell them, CAFE be damned.
“… the manufacturers would figure out a way to make and sell them, CAFE be damned.”
+1
FCA sells 485hp 392 cid V8 Dodge Challenger 6-speed manual with $1000 gas guzzler tax. 707hp Dodge Challenger and Charger SRT “Hellcat” supercharged V8 with $1700 gas guzzler tax. They may not sell like hot cakes, but they are available for people who want them. They are reasonably price too. Less than $40k for the “Scat Pack” 392 and less than $70k for the crazy 707hp Hellcat, after adding the CAFE gas guzzler taxes. No one else in the world makes comparable cars in the same price range.
FCA currently offers $2750 cash rebates on the non-Hellcat Chargers and Challengers. So in effect it’s more than paying the CAFE tax for customers.
I’m not disputing the outcome, which I will fully admit may well have happened anyway, but the intent was definitely there. At the time CAFE was being written there was only one feasible way to meet those standards, and it was with those dorky downsized cars.
I think the role CAFE had was leaving a wide berth for automakers to experiment with when it came to exploiting market niches with light trucks, the way they used to be able to do with cars. Cars have essentially been frozen in time since the early 80s as far as size, segments and bodystyles go. Just from that perception alone cars would seem like old hat.
Perhaps a small sign that the divide is crumbling…
My wife and I attended an out-of-town wedding a few weeks ago. We took my 2015 Fusion.
Wife (the CUV proponent) “This car is REALLY smooth and comfortable!
Me (the sedan lover) “but your Mariner is a hell of a lot easier to get in and out of.”
Maybe we CAN all just get along
I really don’t like a lot of the new technology in late model cars. Things like radar cruiser control, stability control, lane keep assist, even traction control (to some extent) are all things that hamper my driving experiences. I understand that they can help a lot of drivers, but I like to be a little more engaged with my machines. I am little less opposed to connectivity in the car, since cellphones are pretty much integral in everyone’s lives now, but all I need is the basics. Phone calls, text messages, and stream music is fine for me.
Part of me really longs for the days of when I was able to drive simple cars, when parts and maintenance were so much easier. Don’t get me wrong, I know how far cars have come, but there is something to be said about an old simple North American RWD cars and trucks, that anyone could fix and even today parts are common and so much cheaper than the modern counterparts. If I live in a area without winter, I’d very likely have at least one daily driver that was vintage.
The whole CUV thing has never bothered me much. Lets face facts, cars have always been related to fashion and trends. In todays world, beyond the trend aspects, CUV’s do have a lot of appeal to families. With the car seats and all the other stuff that gets’ hauled with kids, quite honestly a sedan just doesn’t cut it in most cases. A CUV at the very least has a lot more cargo capacity, and often times are more child seat friendly. I lament the loss of station wagons, but I also know they aren’t coming back anytime soon. We stuck it out with small cars for as long as we could, even moving to a hatchback. But we finally gave in and went with a CUV, an Outback, albeit in my opinion it really is a jacked up wagon (which is good, I mean the wagon part).
One other thing that has always bothered me is blind brand loyalty. It seems to be even more prevalent in the enthusiast world. I mean, we all have our biases, but how can any logical person think that one brand is infallible, wile another makes all junk?
Interesting! I’ve never seen a Chrysler 200 but I do like that advert.
I also always buy RWD cars – I don’t like torque steer and I can still feel it in the latest generation FWD cars I have driven. As for sedans, well there are so many around they really must be perfect for many folks needs.
I have three beefs:
1. People in really small cars who seem to think the compactness gives them licence to weave through impossibly tight spaces in traffic whenever they want and it occurs to me that many – probably the majority – of the drivers of these cars behave like this.
2. Drivers of any sort of car who take an instant and active dislike to you because they, for whatever reAson, think that if you are driving an expensive car they have the right to abuse, obstruct and inconvenience you. This chip-on-the-shoulder approach to driving is rife here in Australia.
3. Drivers of huge SUV’s who simply don’t know how to drive them. You see it everywhere – they can’t seem to understand how big their chosen steed really is.
Slightly red-faced. Being a bit of an old socialist in my younger days, been guilty of your No.2 in the past. As for No.3, I concur completely. “Yes, you are taking up half the oncoming lane round this corner.”
I’m finding this conversation fascinating – which is why I’ve waited until now to step in.
As the son of a Chevrolet dealer back in the 50’s and 60’s, I grew up with an incredible set of prejudices. Back in the day when you couldn’t lease a Cadillac when your bank account said you were buying a Chevrolet with a massive amount of money down and only two years to pay it off. Back then, you did have an idea of what someone’s net worth was by what they drove. Because the car buying/financing system was set up that somebody who could afford a Chevrolet Impala could maybe also stretch a Pontiac Catalina or a pretty stripped Oldsmobile 88, but there was no way in hell he was going to own a Buick Roadmaster or Electra. And I grew up quietly rating people by what they drove.
Today, you can lease anything. And, as a result, whatever desire I’ve had to own a BMW (I’ve had two) has gone away completely for two reasons: 1. Over 50% of the BMW’s on the road are leased, which in my eyes means they’re being owned by people who can’t really afford them. Which cheapens the car to me, completely. 2. They no longer make a line of ‘driver’s cars’. Yeah, there’s still a few out there, but the majority of their cars are dumbed down for customer that take no pleasure out of the act of driving.
But that’s minor, a prejudice I’ve rather grown out of, more so because I’m more willing to spend relatively insane amounts of cash on motorcycles than I am on cars.
But when it comes to prejudices, I still have one that is huge, all encompassing, and absolutely bigoted to the point of bordering on irrationality.
Resto-rods.
As far as I’m concerned, taking a complete vintage automobile (no matter what condition) and removing any part of, or in its entirety, and replacing it with a modern drivetrain – and then having the gall to put antique plates on it – is a textbook case for justifiable homicide. Against not only the individual who did this to that vintage car, but his entire family.
I grew up in a time when ‘antique cars’ were actually antique cars. Cars that drove like they were designed to drive, with limitations that weren’t limitations back in the day. When antique cars shows were populated with original condition, or correctly restored, antique cars. And if you did major modifications not within what was originally designed, you were politely asked to remove your car from the field. Assuming you got it out there in the first place.
I miss those days. They still exist, but only at AACA sponsored shows.
Tomorrow, I’ll be at Cars and Coffee Richmond, and once again I’ll be looking at what appears to be an incredibly well restored 1934 Buick Model 70 (what was called the Roadmaster in a couple of years). An absolutely beautiful restoration of a very rare automobile – until he pops the hood and you see the LS-1 Corvette engine, not the proper 320ci straight eight. With an automatic transmission, no less. And don’t get me started on the suspension.
No, I don’t hate hot rods. Actually, I rather like them. These cars that started out as a body of something else, turned into a piece of art. But the guys who built these aren’t claiming they’re a 1940 Ford, or a 1936 Chevrolet, etc. They’re claiming it’s a hot rod.
What I hate about a resto-rod the most is that another of a rapidly vanishing breed of antique car has disappeared, all because the owner wanted to be able to do 80mph all day on a drive.
I agree with your resto-mod rant to a point. I think it is a crime to the auto world to take a rare, collectible car in good or restorable condition and modify it is ways that are not easily reversible. On the other hand, there are some cases where it doesn’t bother me, such as it is a fairly common car; it’s a basket case vehicle that few would ever take on restoring; the modifications can be reversed (no body alterations, all original parts retained, etc). I hold two conflicting beliefs: 1). People should be able to do with their private property what they want. 2). Owners of classic cars and other old, valuable things are caretakers of those things for future generations.
This! As a lover of pretty much all old cars my blood boils when they have been restoroded or restomoded beyond reason. I don’t have an issue with someone adding seat belts, safety glass, led(but original looking) tail lamps to their Model A Ford.
A couple of months ago a work associate who runs an antique shop on the side called me to his house to see his latest find from an estate sale – an early 50’s Packard! It was rough and had aftermarket alloy wheels(I should have known what was coming) but worth keeping on the road at first glance. Naturally I wanted to lift the hood and soak in the glory of the magnificent inline 8. Some mother#*^~#% had replaced the engine with a Chevy big block V8! I politely declined the offer for a ride. He resold it like he always does. I can only hope the fellow who bought it was going to do the right thing.
The AACA meeting shows are the only ones I bother with besides my local cars and coffee. The Old Car Festival at The Henry Ford /Greenfield Village is a surreal experience. Here’s a little low quality video I made on my cell phone at the 2015 show.
https://youtu.be/a_AKnn-usqY
I talked to someone recently who had a Chevy-powered Marlin. The reason was simple: the original Rambler 327 engine was dead, with a spun bearing. Parts to rebuild it simply were not available, anywhere, at any price!
I saw a Rocket 88…looked stock, but as it turned out, the 49 body was on the complete frame & running gear of a 72 Cutlass, with the later 350 Olds and TH350. The 49 had been sitying since about 1980, and was rusty-the stock frame was like tissue paper, the drivetrain was long gone. The car was nowhere near a viable restoration candidate; the alternative was scrapping it.
An argument can be made that SBC conversions and the like kept these cars on the road and out of the junk yards, preserving them and as pointed out, a purist may buy that car some day and return it to stock.
He must not have done much of an internet search for that 327, John.
This was 15 years ago-no Internet shopping.
Also, it needed, minimum, a new crankshaft.
I don’t really understand the crossover thing. I’m not driving through a foot of fresh snow because well, there are plows. I could take it off road. Thing is, I’ve done off roading. By the end of the day I’m covered in something that I really don’t want to smear in a high class CUV. I don’t really need the ground clearance and the CUVs don’t haul like a minivan.
Reading all the comments about FWD/RWD/AWD, sedans, hatchbacks, wagons, crossovers, SUVs, pickups, size, fashion statements, utility etc.etc, the AMC Eagle and Peugeot 505 Dangel surely must have been the ultimate Swiss army knifes in the history of automotive.
I do wish they had come here, those Dangel 505’s. Btw, they win over the Eagle, surely, because they also fill the one category you didn’t mention – minivan! They seat 8. The only equal might be a Volkswagen T3 Syncro.
As the owner of a 14 year-old Renault, my malfunction is my daily driver. (Typed on today’s train).
I agree with you Paul that my comment on the government regulating us into autonomous cars was over the top. (Shouldn’t have watched Demolition Man again) but I don’t think we get the choices in vehicles we once had due to government regulations. The government has done good in enforcing standards that have brought us safer roads but at what cost?
Take the Mustang as an example. When it was introduced one of the big selling features was the variety available. Everything from the “secretaries special” to the “hairy chested brute” as I seem to remember the advertising. Nowadays ? Coupe or convertible, 4 or (at much extra cost ) an 8 cylinder. Base or GT. That’s about it. And if you ask the car companies will say themselves due to everything having to meet whatever regulation and the cost of retesting for any deviation from standard we’re not doing it. So has the government said “you can only build this!” Not directly, but indirectly yup!
Again I may be off the mark but I think that is one of the reasons trucks are so hot. It is one of the last bastions of vehicle individuality. Again to use Ford as an example. Compare your truck to a new 2017. A new one can be built in so many variations it will make your head spin. The old one…6 or 8, long box or short, a couple trim levels and that’s about it. Nothing wrong with that but I think that is why a lot of people go for them rather than status. Just my opinion!
Sorry if I have been long-winded, but hopefully that clarifies my thought process and that I’m not thinking it’s all a great government conspiracy !?
I reckon my biggest auto malfunction is that while I like simple old cars (like my ’64 Falcon sedan) they’ve also got to have an automatic transmission. I have never been able to muster up enough interest to learn how to drive a car with any kind of manual transmission. I just don’t wanna be arsed with shifting the tranny manually; I wanna put my 2-speed in ‘D’ and go!
It’s probably obvious, but I’m not a ‘performance guy’. 0-60 mph in a ’64 Falcon with a ‘170’ and a Ford-O-Matic . . . some things are better left unsaid!