Wagons, Wagons, Wagons!

Well, I just cant hide my excitement. The Detroit Auto show brought us no less than 4 new wagons and/or hatches to drool over. Sure, most were announced before hand, but seems like enough are on the horizon to keep things exciting.

 

Probably the most beautiful is the Audi Sportback. Not only does it look great from the side and rear, but they finally worked out something with that grill to make it look almost OK. 

Cadillac is still moving forward with the wagon 

version of the CTS. Not exactly my cup of tea, but I am glad to see it come along.

Another high-end mark, Lincoln got into the mix with its C concept. Looking more like a Renault than the usual FoMoCo offering, it is something that suggests luxury and aggressive futuristic design can go together. Love to see this on the market.

On the other end of the spectrum, Chevy was showing off the tiny Spark, which looks a bit more fun than a Fit. Ford is just brought out the rather humongo Flex, which comes with a supersized serving of MINI-envy. I am waiting for a Focus wagon type variation, or at least a low-rider Edge. Chrysler might end up as the American marketing and distribution arm for Fiat, bringing a whole range of Alpha Romeos and Fiats, including the new 500. All in all, not a bad outlook. 

Except for that whole economy thing...

Design Theory 1: Small Is Where the Action Is

Theory:

Look at the designs from any manufacturer, and I find that their smaller cars are better looking. And by that, I mean more fun, distinctive, and a pure expression of a design theme. And yes, I think fun is important. Cars should be fun. Fun can be serious too, as in serious fun, as in what is probably the best looking car ever: The entire BMW 6 series. Even the new ones with that funny business going on out back. But my real favorite:

Evidence:

Toyota - Yaris looks better than a Corolla, Camry or Matrix.

Honda - The Civic is a more pure, clean design than the overly busy Accord.

Chevy - The Malibu sure is better than the Impala. (sure the Aveo and Cobalt are dogs, but there has to be some exceptions)

Caddilac - Their relatively small CTS looks better than any of their other beasts.

MINI - The regular Cooper, over the Clubman any day. I can't even look at that SUV prototype.

Mazda - The getting long in the tooth 3 is still better looking than the new 6. The 7 over the 9.

Ford - Fusion has a more aggressive look than the 500, I mean Taurus. And again, look no further than previous posts to find me railing against the Focus.

Nissan - I even like looks of the much maligned Sentra over the overworked Altima and Maxima.

BMW - I am a sucker for the aforementioned 6 series, and the Z4 coupe. I like the 1-series hatch, but the 3, 5, and 7 series all look way overworked to me. 

Audi and VW - All of them look pretty bad in the past few years with that huge gaping grill. It looks equally bad on the big ones and the small ones. Although, I could come around for an A5. Nice looking car, grill and all.

Mercedes - I confess: I cant tell them apart. Between confusing letter number combos, and so many models, I gave up a long time ago. There are some nice looking 2 door hardtops out there though that are pretty slick. 

Volvo, Lexus, Infiniti - All better in their smaller models. Period.

And then there are companies who dont make any good looking cars, big or small. Chrysler, I am looking at you. You too Saab, Lincoln, and Suburu.

Corollary:

When setting out to design a smaller car, there isn't as much room to put in a lot of bad stuff. The resulting design is more pure, and when well done, can be more powerful. And more fun!

Big Things In Small Packages

Well, the New York Times is reporting (you have to register on to view) that more people are optioning up their small cars as they trade in the SUV. That should be good news for car makers. For Detroit, it is mixed news, as how many people want a loaded up Aveo? How about a Cobalt GTI? Caliber S? Focus M?

Well, Detroit just doesnt have anything to compete in the premium compact segment. There is nothing that can come up against a MINI, Audi A3, or even a New Beetle convertible all tricked out. Nothing that is fun, sporty, or can be made to be so. Nor anything on the way, that I can see. Ford even just cut out some of the better versions of the Focus.

Oh well...

Mazda: Using Design to Sell Cars

I really like Mazdas. I almost bought a hatchback Mazda 3, and still might if the Volvo dies suddenly (but not unexpectedly, after 240,000 miles). Apparently, I'm not alone, as this is one car company that is seeing sales heading up (at least in 2007) while so many others are wilting.

But, when you look at it, they don't offer anything anyone else doesn't, with the possible exception of the soon to be discontinued Mazda6 wagon and hatchback -- oh, and that funny rotary engine thing. Their cars get decent mileage, but not incredible -- again, except that rotary engine thing, which is addicted to gas. Interiors are nice, but again, not run away leaders in the pack. Reliability is also pretty good, so that doesn't hurt. But their shared platforms with Ford products mean you can pretty much get the same thing elsewhere. Even their "zoom-zoom" ad campaign is kinda lame. And aside from the Tribute hybrid, the only possible thing remotely green is the paint.

What Mazdas do have going for them is their strong design. (GM, Ford, Chrysler: please note that people actually do look at the exterior of cars.) Mazda's cars and cross overs look really good, and all have a corporate semblance so that you recognize each as a part of the corporate stable. There is a great aggressive sportiness, and a grace that goes into each model. Even the RX8, quirky as it is, is pretty charming. The only ugly duckling is the Tribute, a rebadged Ford. Mazda smartly uses design as the thing that makes them different, and different in a good way. And the progression of each model over time, especially notable with the Miata, and now with the new Mazda6 coming out, the picture just keeps getting better.

I only hope that they end up bringing the Mazda6 wagon here after all. It is really sharp looking. Maybe hook it up to a hybrid drive train. And put a big-ass sunroof in it. Throw in an interior that isnt a huge solid expanse of grey while we are at it. Bu-bye Volvo...

GM Hybrids: +2 MPG!

Poking around on AutoBlog Green, I saw that your nice new Chevy Malibu (and its fraternal twin, the Saturn Aura) both are offered with hybrid technology. Cool, I thought.

   

What is not so cool, is that for a $2500 upcharge on the Malibu, or $3500 on the Aura, you can look forward to an improvement in your gas milage of exactly 2 MPG. That is awesome. No wonder Toyota, Honda, and even Ford are actually selling hybrids. They actually deliver some benefit to the owner, and the planet. Even Nissan is getting into the act with a limited number of Altimas, with parts bought from Toyota. 

If GM is going to bother, they should be able to do better than a hybrid system that gets you 32 MPG vs. 30MPG delivered by their 4-banger. 

Hell, I've said it before, but my '95 Volvo gets 30 on the highway if you treat it nice. If you really want to save money, you can buy an older (and I mean ~1997) Volvo sedan with 100K miles (that means another 100K miles left in it) for about 2 grand. Get the wagon if that makes your pants tight. Think of all that metal and other resources you'd be re-using. That in its own way is pretty "green". And, you save some green on your next car purchase. 

If you want to save the planet, well, thats not so cheap. Just don't throw money away on GM hybrids.

Lets Nip this in the Bud

I'm starting to see a design element pop up on new cars that is mighty ugly. Extrenious chrome doo-dads clipped to the side of the car, just forward of the front door. The '08 Ford Focus, already challenged in the eye candy department, forced to wear this f-shaped thing as if it was f'ing pretty. And the poor Saturn Vue, also a bit of a mash-up, had to have one more thing added on, some vent looking things. 

One of the things I keep hearing about design, is when you think you are done, try taking something away, and see if it added anything. I hate to see the thing they took off these ugly ducks.

Tail-lights

Did I mention I have a 65 Falcon Squire?

Well, it's true. So you can imagine my shock and dismay when walking to work that I see a total rip off of the tail lights on some kind of new GMC SUV:

Not that Ford was the only one doing tail-lights like these back in the day. I bet there was an Impala around the same time that had round lights with 4 or 6 radiating chrome doo-dads. But since a while back when Lexus shocked the auto world with its jewel like head- and tail-lights with their RS400, everyone and their mother has been cramming dozens of different light elements under one big uber lens. The idea for these things is to say, "look how cool and modern I am." So to see retro details inside a modern fixture makes one wonder where they were going with this. I wonder if the turn signals blink sequentially like my Dad's '69 Cougar. It says, "Look at my car. It has a little tail-light history museum built into the back."

Which in turn brings up this whole styling of rear lights in general. In my opinion, they are all way too big. If you look at a PT Cruiser, or a MINI, you can see that street legal lights don't have to be huge. So this is a design decision. Guy with the biggest red glowing things wins, I guess. Me, I'd prefer some sleek slim horizontal strip of light that seems tucked into a character line, and is perhaps even wraps around the side. Audi is starting to do something like this with the LED lights, but they are housed in a huge block of red plastic. Oh well.

Early '60s Compact Wagons: Modernists Before Their Time

I like the cars of the early 1960's. And I like small cars. So it only makes sense that I like the 60-63 new compacts put out by the "big 3". My longtime favorite is the Corvair. The ultimate Corvair for me is a 62 Monza wagon. Yep, they made a wagon for two years. I'm not talking the Greenbriar van things, though I have fond memories, sorta. For '61, the Corrvair wagon was called the Lakewood. in '62, they called it the Monza, and put bucket seats in it. In '63, they called it a day, and introduced the convertible instead.

Those Corvair wagons were odd looking. The back of the car seems somewhat awkward, especially compared to their coupe brethren. The rear passenger doors seem huge, and the cargo area somewhat tall. I think this part of the design program must have been done by members of the Impala team. Maybe it was all to provide access to the engine sequestered under the cargo area. No 3rd row of seating here! But maybe there should have been a rumble seat up front! It would have been like those fiberglass motorboats, only even more unsafe!

But even still, they have a bit of grace, and a well restored one is quite delightful, as evidenced by this video.

Check out the four door sedan in the background, and how it's rear doors are actually cool in comparison!

Far more common, and I mean that in every sense of the word, are the Falcon wagons. But even these had some odd members of the family. There was the two door wagon, from which they built the Ranchero, or visa versa. And there was the Falcon Squire, complete with fake wood sides, and a list of upgrades inside and out, including a power window in the tailgate. In the interests of full disclosure, that pic of the blue Squire here is mine. Driving this baby around town gets looks, and it's great for running to the nursery to pick up plants when spring rolls around! There are some people who think it takes up too much space in the garage, but I disagree.

And then for sheer wierdness, look no further than the early Valiant wagons. Complete with Virgil Exner's trend setting body sculpting for the early '60s, the very first Valiants and Lancer wagons are now so rare that a search on Google comes up with just a few pictures from old "for sale" listings, and a mention on Wikipedia. By '63, the styling was toned down and the new models were easier to look at over time, meaning more seem to have survived. Meanwhile, Exner pretty much lost his job over the fact that the styling trends he put forth backfired. Other companies were cleaning up their styling. That, and he downsized the full sized models way too much right around the same time. Ooops.

Most of what Rambler was doing in their smaller cars at during this time was derived from the 50's cars and platforms, and were reminiscent of upturned claw-foot bath tubs. The Japanese were just getting going here, and if there is a wagon from this period, let me know! European imports were starting to take off, and the the only "wagon" I can think of would be the VW passenger van. The Morris Minor had a "woodie", but that was really seems like a 50's car. I am sure there were Holden wagons, or Vauxhalls, or some such thing. But these babies, while nice and surely idiosyncratic, are a bit outside of my world.

So, whats the point? These were practical little haulers. They are the same size as most sedans are now, and get about the same mileage. And with SUVs sales dropping like horse turds, it seems to me these cars are looking more modern all the time.

When Cute-Utes were cute

So who remembers when "Cute-utes" were in fact, cute? Well, cute is hard to define, but it at least implies the fact that they were smaller than the regular SUVs. 

Consider the Toyota RAV4. I just learned that is supposed to mean "Recreational Active Vehicle", while the 4 suggests either 4 passengers, 4 cylinders, and in some models (I assume) 4WD and 4 doors. There, 4 things that the 4 might mean. Nice symmetry.

Ok, so this RAV4 thing started out quite small. As a two door, and later, as a two door convertible, it was in fact, tiny!

So what happened, as typical in the US auto market, if a car is popular, it gets bigger. As the soon to be largest car company ever ever on the planet, Toyota sagely followed the GM playbook, and has progressively made the thing bigger. Now, 10 years later, it is the size that Ford Explorers were back when the RAV4 was introduced. Not so cute anymore!

I dont even want to think about how big Ford Explorers have gotten. Anyone remember the International Harvester TravelAll? The shiney new Explorer I saw the other day had to be as big as one of those!  Just about as pretty, too. No wood though. Too bad.

Corporate insignias: Corporate looking-glass

Walking home the other day, I saw a 2 or 3 year old Chevy Malibu with a GM insignia on the right fender, just aft of the front wheel. That got me thinking.

Chrysler used to have their "star" shaped pentagram logo in chrome on the entire corporate fleet. No more. Checked their sites, and didnt see insignia one. 

Looking on the GM sites, Chevies have it, Pontiacs have it. Caddy's got it. Even Saturns got it. Buicks dont seem to. Which made me wonder why.

Did you know that Buick has exactly 3 models to sell? Enclave, LaCrosse, and Lucerne. 3 models. The pathetic thing is they have a web page on their discontinued models, so you can pine for a Lesabre or Ranier. 

I'd put money on Buick going to where they put Oldsmobile. 

ADDED 6 APRIL 08. OK, so I was walking at lunch today, and saw a Lucerne. Stuck on the side of it was a GM insignia. Checked the other side. GM insignia. So, I stand corrected: The Buicks got them too. But with 3 models, and more Buicks being sold in China than in the US, you gotta wonder, does GM need a niche brand for the golf set?

Is Toyota the new Chevy?

Ok, for our first regular posting, lets fire up the way back machine...

Back in the '60s, when I was buying Hershey bars for a dime, it was the "Big 3", and then everyone else. Now, it is pretty much the reverse of that. Toyota is the new Chevy, aping the styling cues of its luxury cousins. Lets call Honda the new Ford, with its luxury divisions not quite ever getting it together. The new Ford (Honda) and the new Chevy(Toyota) still seem to be trading off who is winning the styling wars (personally, I am voting for Honda right now). And who gets to be the new Chrysler? Probably Nissan, since they have their "Imperial" line up all worked out now, and a bevy of trucks to boot. 

My point is that American cars are pretty irrelevant these days. Ford seems like those loose conglomerates of Britain, circa 1963: the Austin/Sunbeam/Healy mess that no one could ever keep straight who is in and who is out. GM might as well be the Toyota of those days, turning out odd looking vehicles that seem to linger in your peripheral vision. Not sure what the hell Chrysler is these days. Foreign cars are where the action is now. That part of the picture is kinda sad. Will these former greats make their comeback? Not if they keep turning out vanilla milkshakes on wheels.

The bright spot these days, is there seem to be more options to choose from. Gone are the small american independents, but we have an increase overall of makes available, giving us some great choices. The wierd thing is that Hyundai makes better looking cars than Chevy (yes, even the new Malibu), and Mazda made the greatest sales advances in '07, arguably a result of pretty good styling overall. 

Style-wise, the fun stuff is happening in the smaller car segments... Land-yacht and truck buyers are stuck wanting their Cordobas and 98's, with or without a cargo bed out back, regardless what it costs to send our boys to secure our energy future.  Oops, I wasnt gonna get political.