
Soon 2009 and a whole decade will be gone. Many things we will remember, even more we'll probably have forgotten soon. That's life.
I wish you all a happy new year!
P.S. The picture shown here is my this year's new year "card" ...
Many people have been criticizing that each new Porsche looks like the model before. And they are right. But Porsche learned the hard way that it doesn't always pay off to be brave in designing cars. When they launched the Porsche 928 it was very different to anything they had done before. It had an 8 cylinder engine in the front, four seats, was wide and big and it really looked very different to even any other car on the road, maybe with the exception of the AMC Pacer. And you don't want to see this as a design icon. Well the car also suffered from some weaknesses including being very thirsty and having the aerodynamics of a Volkswagen Beetle. But most of these things got sorted out over time and the car actually became quite good. But not good enough to no being successful enough. And never since Porsche announced any radical car like the 928 any more.
In a recent blog post, TopGear Jeremy Clarkson makes the point that hybrid cars are the wrong direction to go and lean burn would have saved the world better than catalyst converters. He claims that Hydrogen cars should be the future. Now, I really like Jeremy Clarkson, but I think he is not really right in his entertaining article. Firstly lean burn wouldn't have brought the improvements in terms of clean emission than the catalyst did. A catalyst cleans about 90-99% of what the car produces while lean burn may lead to a 1.5-2.5 times improvement. Only the combination actually helps. Secondly Hydrogen suffers from many different problems that are difficult to solve and make the introduction very expensive. I strongly believe that improvements in battery technology will make the electrical car more viable than hydrogen powered cars. And if we don't think we need 400 HP and 2 tons to drive from London City Airport to Piccadilly Circus then efficiency should be okay. Hydrogen may make sense for certain types of usages, maybe even for powering the range extender, but I don't believe it's the future of motoring. As we have seen over the last 10-20 years there are many ways of improving already existing technologies. Cars today need probably 50-60% fuel of what they did for the same performance ten years ago. Electrical cars have substantially increased in efficiency over the last three to five years. Combining this with new technologies such as hybrid (ideally not with batteries but rather super caps) and hydrogen we still have a lot to gain before we are running out of affordable oil.
The Volkswagen Golf VR6 was in many perspectives a new type of car. It probably wasn't the first time somebdoy fitted a V6 engine into a small car, but it certainly was the first time that the result wsa so successful. The VR6 continued what the GTI had started, creating a new car category that attracted a very diverse owner audience. Whether you were a banker, an artist or a psychologist or whatsoever, the VR6 was both a compact car and a little racer as well. Since then many manufacturers followed and built top end luxurious hatchbacks for the affluent who still likes a small and not so shiny car.
I owned it for a year and did roughly 12'000 km with it. It was reliable and good to drive, and it certainly helped to establish my love for six cylinder engines.
The Datsun 160B was the first car I have driven on public roads. It was my father's car and it was a typical child of the time. According to the spec it should have had 80 HP, but it didn't feel that fast and it was quite heavy too. But it was a car and it had everything you needed to practice for example double clutching. I took it for a spin quite often after I had received my driving certificate. And it was a very reliable car, something you couldn't say about the brown Alfasud 1.5 Berlina that replaced it. The 160B even became a rallye car, the SSS versions were quite famous at that time and won for example the East African Safari if I am not mistaken.
The car was a sensation, maybe that's not even the full story. 300 km/h was a lot, most people drove a Volkswagen Beetle at that time, with 30 HP from a four cylinder boxer engine, not 350 HP from a Wankel engine. The Mercedes C111 was the first German supercar after the 300 SL Gullwing. And it was quite revolutionary. Wankel engine, 1'240 kg, 0-100 km/h in 4.8 seconds - that was lighter and quicker than the Lamborghini Miura, the car that was to be beaten at that time. It probably was also the first fiberglass car built by Mercedes. And the first mid engine car as well. It was a race car for the road. 50 cars Mercedes wanted to build, some even said 500. The price would have been around DM 60'000, 10-15 of what a Beetle or Kadett was. The energy crisis changed these plans.
The car was never produced and it's only the prototypes that are left. Too bad, the car must have been damned good. At least when you believe what the journalists at "hobby" wrote in No 7 1970. They drove C111/70. If you compare this engineering highlight with the McLaren SLR or even the new AMG Mercedes SLS then you really wonder where all this creativity and innovation spirit has gone.
I have driven many good and some even excellent cars, but there's one car that really stands out in terms of mediocre handling and sub-standard performance: The Datsun 120Y. How could a manufacturer that was able to build such great cars as the Datsun 240Z come up with such a crap car? The handling was more than dangerous, I almost lost the car on a straight! Well the look didn't help either and gosh, the interior was horrible. Anyway I haven't seen one of these for ages and I am sure I would have to smile if I did.
In the previous post I talked about the cars from the passing decade that people will remember in 20 to 30 years. However, maybe more interesting than these memorable cars from the 2000 to 2009 decade is the very long list of cars that will be forgotten and why that’s the case.
The Decade 2000 to 2009 was influenced by a rapidly increasing oil price towards the end of the period (for example the ratio between the highest and the lowest price per barrel was 5-6, peak was reached in 2008), by the inconvenient truth of a changing climate and global warming, by terrorism, tsunamis and hurricanes. Towards the end of the decade the whole world suffered from the consequences of the financial crisis and a global recession. At the same time the digitization of the world has continued and we couldn't imagine a life without mobile connectivity, Internet and flat screens.
Recently we had a discussion on how superior 4x4 (4WD) cars (regular road cars, we don't talk SUV here) are in bad weather conditions. This is certainly true. But is it really worth the extra iron and engineering these days? As I just returned from the mountains where barely nothing else seems to be "en vogue" I thought it's worth some further investigations.
Besides the fact that I didn't have any issue at all with my RWD (rear wheel driven) BMW there's a lot more speaking against 4WD cars. Look at the comparison table where I listed two BMW and Audi, both existing in 4WD and RWD/FWD configuration. The 4WD models are clearly heavier, 105 kg in the case of the BMW 330i, 75 kg in the case of Audi A4 Avant 2.0 TFSI. But even worse, the 4WD cars consume at least 10% more energy and therefore emit more CO2 too. Even the performance suffers, mainly because of the extra weight I would assume. When I bought my current car I switched from a 4WD 5 series BMW to a RWD 3 series. I so much more love to drive the RWD 3 series car. The reduced weight makes a hell of a difference. While the 5 series felt almost like a truck the smaller 3 series convinces with a good handling and is a joy to drive. Now of course I will lose a drag race on snow and I might have an issue with a steep hill under ice conditions from time to time, but looking back, this has really rarely been happening. So why to carry 100 kg extra given all the electronics (DTC, PASM, etc.) on board? I don't see the point.
Imagine living back in the 60ties, actually in 1969 to be specific. You had saved some money, let's say DM 7'000 (€ 3'500), which probably was quite a lot of money at that time. You were looking for an affordable sportscar, a Coupé. Well this could have been your choice:
Today GM has decided to close down Saab it seems. They haven't been able to sell the brand, while the engineering/construction rights for the 9-3 and 9-5 obviously have been transfered to a Chinese car manufacturer.
Let's celebrate, this is the blog entry 200 in 2009 I am doing. But 200 was also an important number when I was young. Most cars at that time actually had a top speed lower than 200 km/h, so when a car was faster it was really fast. And almost every time it would help you win in "Super Trumps". Cars like a Triumph TR3 for example had 200 km/h marked as their top speed on the speedometer, but rarely were able to reach it. So, that's why 200 was such an important in the past and that's why it feels a bit special to post blog entry 200 for me.
It has been around for quite a while, the small city car from Aston Martin. Now they have published "official pictures". Well, it hasn't changed much it seems, it's still a Toyota IQ with some Aston design elements. Now, I somewhat do like the IQ, as it's a clever package and offers some interesting engineering features. But if I like it for € 12'000.- or so it doesn't mean I would pay twice that money to have an Aston badge on it. Car history is full of such failures, remember the Austin Allegro Vanden Plas? So, my advice to Aston is, forget it.
What you see here is a small budget brochure and price list for a TVR Grantura Mk2a of around 1961. £795 was the price to pay for a Grantura with Ford engine, £93 more you handed over for the MG A engine version and if you wanted the Coventry Climax version you the uplift was roughly 30% compared to the Ford version. That probably explains why so few Climax cars were shipped and why most of them received an MG engine during their life. It's also notable that only the MG version was homologated for racing. But even if you paid the £1045 for the Climax car, that wasn't the end. A full stage 3 race tune would add another £105 to the bill, but even the more moderate stage 2 engine conversion was £63. In comparison to this any other option you could order, like a heater/demister unit fresh air type (£15), windows screen washers (£2), leather upholstery (£10-12) or adjustable Koni shock absobers (£10) were quite affordable in comparison. Many people say the Germans have invented the car you can configure, but the TVR guys already had assembled quite a list of stuff to increase the price of your car. Interesting the fact that you could order a lightweight chassis/body combination, only the lightweight chassis or the lightweight body individually. But similar as today it was more expensive to get less. Adding all the bits you may have wanted together you easily could have ended up with a £1200 or 1300 Grantura, a car probably 5-8 times as expensive as a Volkswagen beetle.
Soon we will have a 2010 on our calendars and therefore it's a good moment to look back 30 years to understand what actually 1980 brought to the motoring world and what cars qualify as "oldtimers" in the coming year.
1980 was also a year where fuel economy and cheap cars were trendy, creating an open market for the Fiat Panda.
Also the Renault Fuego was front wheel driven and a successful attempt to replace the not really loved R15 and R17.
When you go through 1980 catalogs to see what (attractive) cars were sold in that year you will find also:
Buying cars in the form of a kit was very popular in the early 60ies. Not only TVR, but also Lotus and many other manufacturers shipped their cars a kits and were avoiding some taxes this way. This made a huge difference for the buyers, but also offered them the challenge to finish the manufacturer's job.
The good thing though was that the owner really know what he was driving and probably was able to fix things better than people buying finished cars. A bad aspect may have been on the other side that unskilled owners made a lot of shortcuts or mistakes that had caused bad consequences later during the life of the car.
Here's another update from the TVR Grantura Restauration. In November it looked like we made progress quickly. Now things have become more difficult. To set the context it needs to be understood that this is a fiberglass car where body and chassis are bonded together. Over fifty years many things have happened and it's not that clear whether you can just cut off the body from the chassis without totally braking it. So, to give the body more strength we added a number of support tubes. While doing this, it became more and more clear that a few things are terribly wrong here. The right side of the car suffers from serious stress.
Sometimes during its "career" the body must have "fallen down" a bit and since then it's not symmetrical any more. Many stress cracks clearly indicate that this has been a problem for quite some time. Also we found out that some fairly important pieces were missing, for example the rear end of the chassis and part of the rear end of the body as well, not to forget quite a few of the chassis tubes.
Luckily enough we were given access to a sister car, neither in pristine order nor "concours", but highly original. So, using this other car, we are able to "reconstruct" the missing pieces and making sure that at the end our car will look right. So quite some time was spent analyzing the sister car with a yard stick and a digital camera.
There's only a limited chance that the conditions on any other planet than earth may have fostered live, evolution and the development of intelligent species. Now, let's assume the people there had a similar history to ours and finally came into the age of individual mobility. How would there cars look? Here's an example from Planet 51. Well, it's quite disappointing. Despite being light years away and having gone through a very different evolution cycle the cars of greenish Planet 51 people look pretty much like what we had in the 60ties, let's say with a Ford Thunderbird. Even the steering wheel is on the left side, so it can be assumed that they drive on the right side of the road. Is all of this caused by the lack of imagination of the film director or does evolution have to happen like this? Is there kind of a Darwin type of theory that intelligent species will always develop eventually colorful multi-seat convertible cars to be driven on the right side of the road with a steering wheel?
Let's assume you still haven't got an idea for a christmas present for someone who is a real petrolhead and you are on a budget of let's say € 600k to 800k. What could you do? Well yes, you could take a look at one of these car sites such as www.mobile.de and see whether there's something in this segment.
Being in the process of experiencing both, the restoration of a car and the renovation of a bathroom, I wondered whether there is really a difference between these two things. Well, to start with, there are clearly many similarities!
Talking to the car mechanic is so much more fun than discussing with the house renovation specialists. And finally, many more people will be able to see the result of the car restoration work than your renovation effort with the bathroom, for obvious reasons.
On today's streets you very rarely can spot a Fiat 850 Sport Spider, despite the fact that they built 124'660 of them between 1965 and 1973!
What was though unique about this car was the shape designed by G. Giugiaro (working for Bertone at this time). The Sport Spider was a very lovely two seater convertible car.
The 850 Sport Spider was the first "classic" I owned. The blue one was a real wreck, I drove it only for a week and had then to get rid of it. The second one (in red) was already much better, but even this was in need for a restoration. When I owned it in the early 80ies people still greeted each other from convertible to convertible. One of the best things about these cars was the engine noise. The blue one could be heard much before it actually could be seen, it was so noisy.
It's Calendar season again. Media companies, car manufacturers, tuners and many other organizations and companies have been presenting their 2010 Calendar. Some of them are really great. We all know the Pirelli Calendar. The 2010 version seems to go a bit back to the roots and focus on what it was always about. A nice calendar comes from Aston Martin showing the various models in a mostly wild and impressive environment. Cool stuff!
The Ford Thunderbird was a direct response to the Chevrolet Corvette. With its elegant shape and the focus on luxury plus sport it was an instant success and sold much better than the Corvette. It came in many color combinations and even today they make a remarkable appearance in any oldtimer gathering. It's certainly not the type of car that would fit to the handling criteria mentioned in my last blog post, but they are great to look at. And for many that's enough.
The other day I discussed with a friend of mine what Handling actually means. He did a bit of research and found a "definition" in a 1996 CAR magazine issue. They spelled out five criterias then:
Alfa Romeo has just announced the 2010 Alfa Romeo Giulietta, formerly known as Milano (or maybe 149). I am very glad, they changed their opinion and actually didn't call the car Milano. As some of my readers may remember, the JWF Milano GT, built from 1962 to 1969 already used this name. And most people who know the car refer to it as "the Milano". So by Alfa changing the name, there's no confusion anymore. Good!
Last Sunday night Top Gear presented the top 10 car makers coming from votes of their viewers (or so). Anyway the question was: What car makers made the highest number of great cars. Great cars means not just good cars, but cars to remember, cars that are exceptional. Well, the top ten Richard and Jeremy showed (see picture) were not what you would expect. Ferrari was on the tenth place, Ford on first. But Richard and Jeremy didn't agree neither. They themselves named Lancia (they were not able to pronounce it correctly of course) as being the car maker with the most great cars.
And they presented quite some evidence. You may not agree with all the (seven) cars they called great, i.e. the Monte-Carlo or so. But clearly they got some cars right, i.e. the all time icon Lancia Stratos, the Lancia Fulvia, the 037 and the Delta Integrale. They missed some of the others (i.e. Aurelia, etc). But they also showed some great rallye pictures and made the point that there's no other car maker winning the Rallye World Championship more often than Lancia. Also Lancia is responsible for many engineering's first in the car industry. Not all of them really made sense, but there was certainly a lot of creativity! Today Lancias are not what they were. Today Lancias are basically rebodied Fiats and some of them are pretty ugly on top of that. It's a sad story. But, hey, there are still Fulvias available at acceptable prices, and even good Betas are rarely beyond 20k. And for the same money you can also get a Delta Integrale with true rallye pedigree. So, get them, as long as they are affordable!
Investing into a future classic car seems like a good idea. Let's take the BMW M3 E30, one of the best homologation specials on the market. It's an icon of the 80ies touring car scene. Awesome to drive, good to look at, even 20 years after its birthday.
Very few people know what a Buchanan is, but most historic racing car enthusiasts know the car that was used to mould the body of the first Buchanans - the Aston Martin DB3S.N H Buchanan Motor Co Pty Ltd was an Australian kit car manufacturer. It made sports cars in the 1950s.
The original body produced by Buchanan was a fibreglass item based on an Aston Martin DB3-S racing car. Buchanan borrowed a DB3-S and pulled moulds from it while it was in Australia. The styling was altered by filling in the scallops either side of the bonnet and reshaping the grille opening to be oval. Because the target market was for rebodying of early model MGs, the Buchanan moulds were cut and extended between the door openings and the rear wheelarches, adding several centimetres to the body length.
Racing car kits were also produced, consisting of this type of body plus a fabricated X-frame racing chassis manufactured from steel channel sections welded face to face to form box sections. The chassis used mechanicals from an FJ Holden, with the front suspension crossmember and rear axle assembly being shortened to suit the narrower body.
The second model, the Buchanan Cobra was introduced in 1958 as a production vehicle based on Standard 10 mechanicals. Only 7 were manufactured.
Buchanans were used on the road, but also raced quite successfully. You can see some of the cars pictured on the side. (pictures taken from "Buchanan Motor Company")
To some extent Buchanan can be compared with Devin or JWF. I like this breed of course and wouldn't mind owning a Buchanan.
A friend of mine recently told me that the latest "evolution cars" and high end spin-offs are neither exciting nor superior anymore. He illustrated this with the not really top rated Audi TT RS, but there are many other disappointing examples like the latest Mitsubishi Lancer Evo or Subaru Impreza.
Or take the Porsche 924 Carrera GTS. A true racing car with road registration. Hotter than the GT which already was a pretty exciting car.
Ferrari build many evolution and homologation cars, i.e. the 250 SWB or the F40. All of them have been competitive and attractive as well.
So, as a summary, true homologation specials and evolution models are cars without compromise, designed to win on the track and to offer a minimum amount of comfort and convenience anywhere else. Collectors love these things and even when the car is not competitive compared to modern sports cars, driving one of them is awesome and very rewarding.
So, if you plan to buy a Audi TT RS, maybe you reconsider, buy a normal TT and an M30 E30 on top.