Too Many Cars, Not Enough Market?

Too Many Cars, Not Enough Market? As we watch the slow-motion train wreck that is the dying global automotive business, it's easy to blame the economic situation for the debacle. And it's certainly a contributing factor. Or more precisely, an accelerating factor. It has made matters worse - and faster.

However, so far, there has been little discussion of the overcapacity issue that underlies the problem - and which is far more serious and which has been quietly bleeding the industry white for years now. What's "overcapacity"? Too many vehicles chasing not enough market.

The industry - that's all the carmakers put together - tries to sell on the order of 11-12 million new cars every year because that's how many cars they build. The problem is it's hard to sell that many cars, even in the best of times. And it's even harder to sell them at any kind of decent profit. For years now, the margins on most cars have been slim - and getting slimmer. Often as little as a few hundred bucks, net, per car.

Think how lousy a business that is. A car is a hugely complex thing comprised of thousands of individual components that must be manufactured at various locations and then assembled into a single unit. Literally thousands of people and several weeks (if not months) of assembly process are involved in the creation of a finished, ready-to-drive car.

Also, modern cars, once built, have an extremely long shelf life compared with the cars of the past. With decent care, they can (and do) last 15-plus years and more than 200,000 miles. But the auto industry continues to churn out new cars on the 1960s-era assumption that the entire fleet gets recycled every 5-7 years or so. Result? The inventory (new and used) stacks up. And yet, each year, it seems another automaker jumps into the already overcrowded waters with yet another model to compete against the existing multitude - making it ever harder to earn a buck off the already-there stuff.

There was an exception to this - SUVs - during the period that ran roughly from the early 1990s through last year. Profit margins on SUVs were huge - as much as $10,000 or more per vehicle on a high-end model such as a Lincoln Navigator or Cadillac Escalade. Why? Because at first, there were only a few SUVs on the market - far fewer (both model-wise and total numbers-wise) than the emerging market for them. So the automakers could charge more for them. SUVs were also easier and cheaper to build than passenger cars - which helped uptick the profit per vehicle. But the real reason they were such money-makers - at first - was because supply lagged behind demand. Now, of course, the market for SUVs is glutted, too. Which gets us back to the overcapacity issue.

The U.S. population has roughly doubled since the mid-1960s, going from around 160 million to over 300 million today. That's everyone - not just the people who are in the market for a new car - which of course is a much smaller number/percent of the total. But the number of active "players" in the US car market - brands of cars and types of cars - has expanded by triple or more during that same period.

In 1970, GM controlled about 50 percent of the U.S. car market; Ford and Chrysler each had about 20-something percent. AMC was a bit player. VW, Toyota, Honda and Nissan (then Datsun) hardly registered. And they produced small cars only - not the full range of models from econo-boxes to SUVs and luxury cars they offer today. Mercedes, BMWs, Audis and Volvos were exotic curiosities one rarely saw outside of places like New York City and Los Angeles.

And of course, there was no Acura, Lexus, Infiniti; the luxury car market in the United States was the virtually exclusive province of Cadillac and Lincoln.

Within each model segment - mid-size family sedans, for example - there were typically three or four major contenders circa 1970. Today, there are more than a dozen contenders in this same segment - and it's similar in virtually every other segment. Meanwhile, the buyer pool has not increased in parallel with the increase in the number and types of vehicles being offered.

And of course, each vehicle sold these days tends to remain in service two or three times as long as the typical car of the '60s or '70s - which was beer can fodder by about 100,000 miles.

This combo - a surfeit of vehicles and a much slower turnover rate across the board, has created a much weaker, less solvent industry - precisely because the industry has given us cars that are so much better than they used to be in so many different varieties. Ironic, isn't it? Competition and consumer choice are good things, of course - but like many things, not to excess.

Some don't want to face up to this, however - most notaby orthodox "free market" theologians. It is anathema to them to even discuss the possibility that maybe there can be such a thing as too much choice. And even, perhaps, too much competition.

Why not allow the very same market forces that have given us so much choice to thin the herd? Billions of taxpayer dollars have already been thrown like so much confetti at the floundering automakers in order to assure that not a single car company goes under, economic viability be damned.

But this will only preserve a bad situation for a little while longer; the jobs supposedly saved will still be lost in the long run. Because the market's just not big enough to absorb 12 million new cars being added to the mix every year. Eventually, reality will have its way - but from the looks of it, not before we bankrupt ourselves in a last-ditch effort to deny the obvious.

Read more »

Five Ford Fails

Five Ford Fails, America's Big Three have had more than their share of bad ideas over the past 20 years. Let's look at Ford's flops first.

* Lincoln Mark VIII (1993-1998) - This car snuffed what had been a successful franchise for Ford. In the '80s, the Mark VII (http://www.carmild.com) was thought of by many as an American take on the Mercedes-Benz SL500. Like the big Benz, it had the substantial look of a lead ingot carved with the precision of a laser beam. It was powerful, too. The car shared the same basic drivetrain used in the same-era Ford Mustang GT, including its High Output 5.0 V-8. It also had an air-adjustable suspension, bolstered euro-style sport buckets, a full gauge package and was one of the first American-brand cars to come with high-capacity four-wheel-disc brakes with ABS. The thing sold very well ... until Ford restyled it for the 1993 model year and christened the result the Mark VIII. This car looked like a Mark VII that had been left in the oven too long. *

Even though it had a much more powerful engine (Ford's new 4.6 liter "cammer" V-8 with 290 hp in the top-of-the-line LSC) its pulling power with buyers was far weaker than the old 5.0 powered Mark VII. After five listless years and ever-declining sales, Ford dropped the Mark - and dropped out of the luxury sport coupe market completely.

Ford said the market for high-end coupes just wasn't there. But it would have been more accurate to say the market for Ford-built high-end coupes wasn't there. Which brings us to our next contestant.... .

* Ford Thunderbird (2002-2005) - An icon was revived (briefly) that was greeted (initially) with lots of enthusiasm but which quickly became a horrendous money-loser for Ford - mainly because most people simply weren't willing to spend nearly $40k for a car that was "just" a Ford. Dealer gouging for the first cars off the line made it even worse. http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/u...ue-top-off.jpg Most of them ended up just sitting there. And sitting there... .

Some industry analysts argued in their post mortems that the car might have done better had it been sold through Lincoln dealers. The thinking being that high-end customers expect a high-end dealership experience and the status that comes with a perceived "luxury" brand - which of course, Ford was not. And there was probably something to that. Of all the big bucks coupes out there, only Chevy gets away with selling $50k Corvettes through the same outlets that also sell $11,000 Aveos. But the Corvette can get away with it because it's an icon with a strong market presence that's largely the result of an unbroken history going back to the 1954.*The 'Vette never went away. *

By the time Ford brought back the T-Bird, no one - or at least not enough people to make the nut - cared anymore.

But probably even more lethal than trying to rebuild a long-dead franchise was the latter-day 'Bird's personality. While other modern cars have dabbled with "retro" design, the T-Bird really was retro all over. It seemed to be built for laid-back cruising - something almost no one does anymore. We live in a frantic, aggressive, stressful world. Few of us take our time doing anything - let alone driving. The latter-day T-Bird* was a joy to take out on the Blue Ridge Parkway or Skyline drive and amble along at 45 mph enjoying the scenery.

But it didn't feel right anyplace else. As a time machine, it was brilliant. Unfortunately for Ford, most buyers weren't looking for a $40k trip down memory lane.*

* Lincoln Blackwood (2002-2002) -* Who needs a $50k pick-up with a functionally useless bed? http://www.carmild.com Apparently, next to no one.

Lincoln's uber-luxury pick-up fell through the thin ice faster than a jumping up and down Oprah. It lasted just one year in production - a measure of the disastrous decision to build the thing in the first place.

The problem wasn't price; after all, Ford had no trouble selling Navigator SuVs for just as much. But unlike the Navigator, which could so some things, the Blackwood was useless for anything other than proving that rich people can be just as dumb as everyone else. Or maybe not - because this time, even the rich said no thanks.

The short bed was never intended to carry any of the stuff that pick-ups usually carry. Carpet, fine wood paneling, LED track lighting abd brushed metal trim don't exactly mix with stacks of 2x4s or bags of cement - or even a wet Labrador Retriever. That's if you could access the bed at all. To do that, you had to raise a clumsy, power-activated tonneau cover that further limited the already minimal usefulness of this "truck."

The piece de resistance? The Blackwood was sold as a 2WD only - making it the only full-frame, full-size truck which couldn't even be ordered with 4WD. Nothing like a 15 mpg, 2WD truck that can't carry (or even tow) much of anything and which is more skittery in snow than a '78 Caprice Classic with bald tires and an open rear end.* (See also: Mark LT.)

* Mercury Cougar (1999-2002) - Just keeping Mercury around is arguably one of Ford's biggest mistakes of the past 20 years.

Thirty or forty years ago, it made sense for Ford to have a "mid-level" brand - just as GM had Buick and Pontiac. Buyers often spent their entire car-buying lives within the Ford Family of Fine Cars, moving from Joe Sixpack Fords to almost-luxury Mercurys - and from Mercury to Lincoln, if they became successful enough. But that was before the flood of Japanese imports reduced Ford Motor Co.'s share of the American car market by more than half - and before buyers routinely switched brands if they found a better car somewhere else.

The last Cougar (http://www.carmild.com) was at least a unique model - unlike the previous versions, which began life in the '60s as tarted up Mustangs and went through the '80s as rebadged Thunderbirds. It actually wasn't a bad car; it's just that it wasn't an especially great one. Many saw it as a girl's car; others weren't sure about its iffy styling. Even Ford seemed unsure what to do with it.

In V-6 form, it offered decent get up and go, but Ford never developed it further. A performance-themed "S" version with a high-output engine and sport suspension was considered - and might have given the car some bona fides - but it never got released. So the Cougar just sat there, unsure of itself and without a real reason for its existence.

A hugely successful automaker such as Toyota can get away with some soggy offerings (for example, the ungainly Camry Solara) by dint of the vast pool of loyalists who just want a "Toyota" ... any Toyota. But Mercury hasn't got that kind of pull - and the cat that no one wanted was put to sleep after the 2002 model run.

* Lincoln LS (2000-2006)- This one's upsetting because the LS* had real potential. It might even have saved the brand - which today (late 2010) is on the verge of total collapse.

Arguably, the LS (http://www.carmild.com) was the best sedan Lincoln put out in 25 years. But the management eggheads decided to drop it instead of correcting the few relatively little (and easily fixable) things that were actually wrong with it.

The LS sedan was Ford's attempt to build a credible rear-wheel-drive luxury-performance sedan comparable to a BMW 3-Series. And it was credible - right down to its available manual transmission and trunk-mounted battery. Handling was excellent; ride quality very close to the best German sport sedans. Buyers could choose a punchy 252 hp V-8 if they sought more power than the 210 hp 3 liter V-6 offered. This engine was sourced from Jaguar's "AJ" series V-8 and had both the power and the sophisticated demeanor to stack itself up against the very best Euro powerplants of the era.*

As a driver's car, there was little to fault. The LS could corner; it had high-speed legs. It felt good when pushed. Motor Trend gave it "Car of the Year" honors its first year out. And yet, it failed. Que pasa?

Partially, a clash of car and brand - and buyer. Lincoln, as a brand, was not BMW - even if the LS, itself, was a credible BMW in training. Lincoln buyers were (and still are) mostly Blue Hairs and Bob Dole types who want soft seats, wire wheels and automatic transmissions. The typical Lincoln customer had about as much interest in a sport sedan like the LS as* Clay Aiken has in Pamela Anderson. And BMW buyers weren't crossing over, either.

The LS did have some flaws, too - in the cabin department especially. The layout and materials rose to the mediocre. While the handling/driving dynamics were good enough to play with the Bavarians, the interior was Wal Mart all the way.

Still, it was a damn good first effort - and given persistence and fixes where needed, Lincoln could have made a go of it. That's what a Japanese car company would have done (Lexus too was laughed at initially; no one's laughing now - least of all Ford shareholders). But as is usual practice for an American car company, Ford just gave up. Lincoln went back to selling overstuffed old man's cars - including the Zephry and MKS. And those may turn out to the last cars Lincoln ever sells, too.

Read more »

Cars That Drive Themselves

Cars That Drive Themselves, People seem to like this idea. It makes my flesh crawl. Well, maybe not that extreme. But the idea does depress me.

A big part of what makes driving enjoyable is the freedom and control it gives you, the individual. It is your car and you are in charge of directing its course, of deciding how to get there. You can choose your route and proceed at whatever speed seems reasonable to you. If you like, you can stop for a cup of coffee. Or to admire a scenic view.

You control your destiny. You are a driver.

If cars drive themselves, then you become a passenger. A passive pound of flesh transported by the intelligence of and under the direction of someone (or some thing) else. You get there when someone else decides you get there. You travel at the speed someone else (or a machine) determines to be the "right" or "safe" speed. There will be no stopping along the way; no taking the scenic route just because.

The only difference between an automated car and taking the bus is that you don't have some stranger sitting beside you coughing his flu all over your face. But the essential thing is identical. You have surrendered your autonomy; for the duration of the trip, your fate is out of your control. You are now a member of the Mass. One of Many, another sardine to be fileted and packaged and sent on its way. How is this appealing?

Oh, I know. It is more efficient. Automated cars can be slotted in tightly, perhaps just inches away from one another - and moved in synchronicity at high speeds, getting us there sooner and faster. More people can be moved more rapidly from A to B. There will be fewer accidents. More predictability. And much less joy.

Psychologists (and common sense) tell us that an important part of being human - or at least, an essential part of the human experience - is the exercise of personal mastery over external circumstances. To be able to do what you wish, according to your own lights. To enjoy the satisfaction that comes with learning a skill and exercising that skill. Of being competent. If you like to drive, you will understand what I mean.

There's the early thrill of being permitted to climb behind the wheel of a car for the very first time; of learning to shift and work a clutch. For many, this is a big step on the road from teenagerdom to adulthood. It is one of the first "grown-up" things many of us get to do during our adolescence.

Once the basics are down pat, we begin to acquire skills. We get better and better at timing our merges; of learning to judge in our heads just how much room we've got to pull into traffic - and how much speed we'll need to do it properly. A smartly executed fast pass or perfectly timed corner exit is a form of art in motion. Knowing you are a good driver - that you can handle it - is immensely satisfying.

Automated cars would take that all away. In effect, we'd be reduced to the state we were in as young children - when our parents buckled us in and took us for a drive when and how they wished. Our role was to sit quietly and await our arrival - more or less shut down in the meanwhile.

That's the Brave New World in store for us - perhaps just a few short years down the road. The gadgeteers are hard at work. Google - a new Dark Empire if ever there was such - has been field-testing driverless cars for months, apparently. Probably many people will welcome it.

They're already half-dead anyhow - sleepwalking through life with reel-loop videos of last night's game (another passive, life-through-others "activity') and a vague hunger for another fast-food meal rolling through their minds as they slog back home to the underwater McMansion from another day being told what to do and how to do it by impersonal others in their cubicles. For them, driverless cars are the logical end point. Why not? But not for me.

If the day ever comes when I am no longer permitted to operate my car myself, that will be the day I give up on driving - as such will have ceased to be possible anyhow. Maybe, in tribute to Edmund Ruffin, I will wrap myself in my shop manual and beat myself unconscious with a torque wrench. The New World isn't something I want to be conscious for anyhow.

Read more »

The Economy and The Classic Car Hobby

The Economy and The Classic Car Hobby, How has the bad economy been affecting the classic car hobby? On the upside, certain classic cars - especially muscle cars from the '60s and '70s - have suddenly become more affordable.

Though we've seen some of these - such as Hemi-equipped '60s and early '70s-era Chryslers - top $200,000 at auctions, these cars have always fundamentally been working and and middle class cars. While the value of especially rare ones - the Hemi 'Cudas and Chargers; 427 Super Yenko Camaros; Boss Mustangs, etc. - will always be high, the overall "price of entry" has been coming back to a more accessible level for many of these cars.

Even now - with the full extent of the economy's troubles likely only beginning to dawn on most of us - one can buy a regional show winning example of something like an early '70s Camaro or Chevelle for around $30,000. Even GTOs are becoming more reasonably priced - most of them, anyhow. (Convertible Judges and RA-IV models are still commanding Monopoly money prices.)

Overall, things are looking up. A quick survey of Hemmings classifieds, online classic car stores and the local Old Car Trader turned up several late '60s/early '70s Goats for $25,000-$30,000 or so. The number of ads in the $50,000 range and up seems to be declining.

This is bad news for the speculator class responsible for turning what used to be a hobby into an "investment opportunity" - but it's very good news indeed for the rest of us, especially those of us who were too young to get in on muscle car ownership the last time these things were semi-affordable, back in the late '80s/early '90s.

Yes, $30,000 or so is still a lot of money - but it's not out of sight. With financing (readily offered by many classic car stores) it's a very doable thing. And that's for for the more desirable late '60s/early '70s stuff - and for better condition stuff, too.

Look around and you'll see that solid "drivers" (cars with visual flaws that might not win a show but which are nonetheless presentable and can be easily fixed up to much better condition) are going for much less. $15,000 or so can buy you something very nice to play with, such as a mi-late-'70s Z28 with a 350 V-8 and 4-speed in solid "Number 2" condition.

The downside is that just as muscle cars are becoming more affordable for average people, average people are less and less in a position to buy one - or feed it. Unless you're very comfortably middle class - at the least - buying a classic car is hard to do. Especially if the wife gets wind of it. You want to spend $20,000 on .... what?

There's a mortgage to pay, bills coming in ... the kids' college fund. Not many of us have twenty or thirty grand in discretionary cash laying around - or can afford to fill up the 21 gallon (and premium unleaded only) tank of the typical V-8 muscle car. Still, the financial pendulum is swinging back toward affordability; you might not be able to drive it much - but you might be able to buy the thing.

So, if you've long wanted to own something cool from the classic era, you ought to be looking around now - and scraping together whatever available cash you can. Be ready - and jump on the opportunity when it presents itself. Because a gimpy economy notwithstanding, the dip in muscle car prices is probably temporary. They're not building any more of them, for one - and when the "investor class" recovers its nerves (and figures out a new way to fleece the rest of us) they'll be back.

And when they are, it'll be harder for average hobbyists to get closer to one of these greats than a glossy calendar posted in the garage...

Read more »

Reviewing the 2010 Hyundai Sante Fe

Reviewing the 2010 Hyundai Sante Fe Here's something uncommon: a manual six-speed transmission as an available feature in a medium-sized crossover SUV. The 2010 Hyundai Sante Fe is almost unique in this respect.But it's not the only area where the new Sante Fe offers something different - or simply more appealing.

WHAT IT IS

The Sante Fe is a medium-sized, five-passenger crossover SUV available with front-wheel-drive or all-wheel-drive - and four or six-cylinder engines. It's about the size of a Chevy Equinox but costs less across the board. Base price for the four cylinder/manual-equipped front-drive GLS is $21,695 (vs. $22,615 for the Equinox).A top-of-the-line Limited with V-6 and AWD carries sticker price of $28,595 (vs. $29,970 for the similarly fitted out Equinox LTZ).

WHAT'S NEW FOR 2010

The Sante Fe gets two new engines as well as significant exterior and interior updates.

WHAT'S GOOD

Available manual transmission adds a unique touch as well as sportiness. Standard four cylinder engine has enough power (175 hp) to make the optional V-6 unnecessary. Optional V-6 has enough power to make the Sante Fe downright quick. Gas mileage with this engine is almost exactly the same as it is with the four. More room for cargo than Equinox. Love the pull-out (vs. pull-up) handle for the rear liftgate.

WHAT'S NOT SO GOOD

Manual transmission only available in base GLS with front-wheel-drive and four-cylinder engine. All AWD (and V-6) versions require the automatic transmission. Less rear seat room than Equinox.

WHAT'S UNDER THE HOOD

The Sante is available with either a four-cylinder engine or a V-6. The standard 2.4 liter engine produces 175 hp - making it among the strongest base/four-cylinder engines available in a mid-sized crossover SUV (the Chevy Equinox's 2.4 liter, 182 hp engine is number one on power - but just barely). It is offered with your choice of either a six-speed manual transmission (a very rare feature among vehicles of this type) or a six-speed automatic. You can select front-wheel-drive or all-wheel-drive; however, choosing AWD requires the automatic transmission - and bumps the Sante Fe's price to $24,695.

Acceleration and fuel efficiency are both very good with the base 2.4 liter engine. The four-cylinder Sante Fe can reach 60 mph in about 8.2 seconds, which as Hyundai likes to point out is actually quicker than last year's 2.7 liter V-6 powered Sante Fe. Fuel economy - 21 city/27 highway for the AWD version is also better than last year's 2.7 liter V-6 equipped Sante Fe (17 city/24 highway).

The optional 3.5 liter, 276 hp V-6, meanwhile, is much stronger than last year's 3.3 liter, 242 hp V-6 and the 2010 model's 60 time (about 7.8 seconds) should silence criticism of the old Sante Fe for being a bit of a dog (it was). Fuel economy with the new V-6 (20 city/26 highway) is also improved over the previous 3.3 liter engine (17 city/24 highway). The 3.5 liter engine comes standard with the new six-speed automatic and your pick of FWD or (optionally) AWD. Maximum towing capacity is 3,500 lbs. - par for the segment.

ON THE ROAD

The new 2.4 liter engine is a big improvement over the previous 2.7 liter V-6. It's got enough power/delivers quick enough acceleration that you don't really need to upgrade to the optional V-6 (essential in the previous Sante Fe). The more advantageous gearing of the new six-speed transmissions (manual or automatic) means there's less RPM drop between each gear change, and this makes the Sante Fe feel quicker (and sound better) when accelerating rapidly.

The available six-speed manual transmission may not be high on most people's list of Must Haves, but it does add a degree of sportiness that's simply not offered in other medium-sized crossover SUVs - the vast majority of which are automatic-only (including the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4). In fact, you have to go down a size - and to something more wagon-ish, like the Subaru Forester - to find a clutch at all. The Sante Fe's optional V-6, meanwhile, is as powerful as the engines found in larger - and much more expensive - premium crossover SUVs like the Lexus RX350 (3.5 liters, 275 hp) and more powerful than the optional V-6s in direct competitors such as the Chevy Equinox (3.0 liters, 264 hp).

The six-speed automatic (standard with the V-6) shifts aggressively but not harshly; gear changes happen quickly but the transitions involve minimal driveline shock. It feels almost CVT-like when you're driving hard, but without the noise and harshness. You can control up and downshifts manually if you like but as with most modern automatics, it's not necessary. The transmission shifts better than you can on its own - though it can be fun to play with the "+" and "-" shift controls sometimes, too. The Sante Fe's ride quality and its overall driving feel are both comparable to anything else in the segment, with the biggest difference being the SF costs less.

AT THE CURB

The SF's exterior styling is fairly generic but nothing about it is disproportionate or ugly. It's less rugged and macho-flavored than the hunky Chevy Equinox but functionally it does as much or more than the Chevy in most respects. For example, it has more total cargo capacity (78 cubic feet vs. 64 for the Equinox) and noticeably more front seat legroom (42.6 inches vs. 41.2 inches).

However, rear seat legroom is significantly less in the SF than the Equinox - 36.8 inches vs. 39.9 inches. This is where Hyundai designers compromised - opting for more total cargo space at the price of cutting down on rear-seat accommodations somewhat. It's cozy in the second row - my knees just barely touched the front seatbacks - but not cramped. I'm well over six feet tall, so most people's knees won't touch the front seatbacks.

Nice features include air ducts built into the B pillars for the second-row passengers, which is better in my opinion than the more common ducts built into the back of the center console, which is mounted lower and thus sends a lot of the air to the floor area rather than more directly toward the people sitting back there. In the cargo area, there's a large hidden storage compartment under the floor that's handy for securing valuables out of sight. There's also a 12V power point back there, which is nice to have for tailgating.

Speaking of the tailgate - one of the SF's standout features is the pull-out handle to open it up.This design is very ergonomic; the hand placement (and lifting action) is much more natural - plus you don't have to fish around for a hidden/hard-to-see pull-up handle, as on may other crossover SUVs.

The layout of the interior - especially the dash area is modern and attractive. The center stack is canted slightly toward the driver, which is sporty and functional. Cool deep blue backlighting for the gauges and controls gives the cabin a high tech glow at night. The blue is also easy on your eyes.

THE REST

Unlike early Hyundais - which were usually decent cars but with some obvious cheap-outs here and there - current Hyundais boast fit and finish, paint quality and overall attention to detail that's mostly as good as anything else in their price range - and sometimes even better. The SF's dash area, for example, has really rich-looking wood trim inserts (not the gauche-looking, obviously fake, overly-lacquered and shiny crap you find in some others - you know, the stuff that looks like a shellacked Elvis photo on an old piece of driftwood) and the dashpad is made of soft plastic as nice as you'll find in anything the SF competes with.

I searched the whole car over and the only small thing I found was a slightly rough body seam/join behind the liftgate. Nothing horrendous or functionally problematic. Just a slight echo of Hyundais-Gone-By.

What really matters, quality wise, is the superlative record Hyundai has earned in recent years - as measured by customer satisfactions surveys and the incidence or problems major and minor. People love their Hyundais - and if you research it a bit you'll find they have good reason to. Recent vintage Hyundais have a much better than average record for reliability and a low incidence of significant problems cropping up.

And there's no knocking the SF's standard five year/60,000 mile comprehensive warranty, or its 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain coverage. It simply cleans the clock of Toyota and Honda (which both offer puny three year/36,000 mile basic warranties) and is substantially better than the Chevy Equinox's three year/36,000 mile basic coverage (and five year/100,000 mile powertrain coverage).

Read more »

Five Top Safety Tips for Long Distance Driving

Five Top Safety Tips for Long Distance Driving, The goal of long distance driving is to get to your destination safely. We all know someone who says, "The time to get there is usually six hours; I did it in four and a half!" Speed should not be your primary focus. If you focus on getting there in the fastest amount of time, mistakes and errors in judgment can be made. Here are five tips to reach your destination in one piece.

1. Have a Current AAA Plus Membership Card with you. This annual membership provides 24-hour roadside service. The regular card will only transport your car to the nearest repair shop, give a battery charge, or change a tire for a fee of under $50. The AAA Plus card provides additional services. They will tow you for 100 miles for free, a definite convenience for long distance driving. The AAA plus also allows free fuel service, and a $750 traffic accident continuation trip if you are 50 miles or more from home.

2. Do Not Use Cruise Control. Long distance driving can have a hypnotic and fatiguing effect. Cruise control emphasizes and enhances that effect. Especially if you are tired, cruise control's ability to stay at the same speed can quickly lull you into sleep. Your eyes can close at that critical moment when traffic slows down, and you're still driving at 70 miles per hour. Lose control of the car, and you have an accident waiting to happen. Drive the car on your own so you can speed up or stop at a moment's notice as needed.

3. Don't Eat Heavy Food during the trip. You are going to be sitting and stationary for several hours at a time. Fast food in your stomach will give you a bloated and heavy feeling. Heavy and greasy food like double cheeseburgers, French fries, pizza, fried chicken and biscuits will contribute to the desire to take a nap. Better to eat light food like salads, soup, fruit cups and juice during the trip to keep your head clear. Coffee or hot chocolate is always a safe bet for long distance driving.

4. Stop and Get Rest in a Safe Place. Contrary to popular belief, boyfriends and husbands, long distance driving demands frequent rest stops. Fatigue can overtake you quickly, especially if you only watch the road in front of you instead of taking in the scenery while you drive. Be aware of overall discomfort, muscle aches in the neck, arms and shoulders. This is your body telling you it needs a break. When your tank is half empty, take bathroom and gasoline breaks at the same time. Stop in the refreshment area, walk around, clear your head, get some food, and then take a nap. Never park in the outskirts of a rest stop; park near another car or truck. Parking next to a van with a traveling family is always a safe bet. Park in front of a fast food restaurant, and then go to sleep. You may be surprised to see another driver next to your car doing the same thing!

5. Listen to Fast, Upbeat Music. This is not the time to listen to classical music or talk radio. Unless the topic is something that excites you, talk radio can lower your alertness. Instead, listen to upbeat music, especially anything that makes you want to sing along. Play music you haven't heard before, like Hip Hop, Salsa, or Reggae. Change the radio station whenever you reach a new state. Bring some tapes you enjoy, or have a tape made of fast, stimulating music just for your long distance drives.

Long distance driving can and should be a fun experience. The quality of the drive should be better than the quantity of arriving at your destination quickly, but exhausted. Use these tips on your next trip, and see the change in your driving attitude.

Read more »

Things You Should Never Do to a Vehicle

Things You Should Never Do to a Vehicle, Car owner's manuals are like "Moby Dick" - we all have a copy someplace, but few of us ever made it through the whole thing. For those who didn't, here's a short list of things in the "don't do that!" section you may have missed: Never...

* Tow (or haul) more than the maximum-rated capacity

Ugly things can happen if you do. Examples include hitches/mounting points actually coming apart - and your load coming loose at 65 mph. Or overloaded brakes failing as you make your way down a steep grade. Beds/trunks weighed down by whatever you've crammed in there can compress the rear suspension dangerously - creating an evil-handling, ready-to-wreck ride that you'll regret ever having set in motion. And even if nothing immediately awful happens, you're still placing extreme stress on your vehicle that will result in rapid wear and tear of parts, which means they'll likely need to be replaced sooner than they otherwise might have. Burning up a clutch, ruining an automatic transmission or blowing out your shocks/struts can end up costing you a lot more than what you would have spent to rent/borrow a vehicle with the capacity you needed. Or just use yours - and make two trips with two smaller/lighter loads.

* Keep your 4WD in 4WD on dry, paved roads

If you have a truck or SUV with a part-time 4WD system, the majority of your on-street driving should be with the selector in 2WD. The other ranges - typically, 4WD High and 4WD Low - are not intended for use on dry pavement. Driving on smooth surfaces with 4WD engaged (and especially going around corners on dry, smooth surfaces with 4WD engaged ) can damage your 4WD system and leave you facing costly repairs. 4WD High range should only be engaged when there is snow on the road - or you've left paved roads entirely. 4WD Low should never be used on paved roads unless you are trying to make your way through very deep, unplowed snow. Otherwise, save it for driving off-road, at low speed, through deep mud, sand or on a very rugged dirt trail. 2WD should be re-engaged as soon as you're back on dry pavement/smooth roads. If your pick-up or SUV has a locking differential(s), be certain you only use it when the vehicle is moving forward or reversing - and not going around a corner. When cornering, the inside and outside wheels turn at different rates; the differential allows them do so without binding up. But when the differential's locked, the axles can bind - even break - if the stresses are severe enough. If that happens, you'll be stuck - and looking at a very big bill.

* Use a different weight (or grade) of oil than specified by the manufacturer

This is especially important with modern engines, because they are built with much closer tolerances than the engines of the past. Running a heavy oil (say, 20W-50) in an engine designed to use 5W-30 can increase friction inside the engine, reduce fuel efficiency - and possibly even lead to more serious problems that may not be covered by your new car warranty. The same also goes for American Petroleum Institute (API) ratings. If your vehicle's manufacturer says to only use oil with at least an SM rating (for improved oxidation resistance, protection against deposits and better low-temperature performance) and you cheap out by using a lower-performance SH/SG oil (for 1996 and older engines) you found on sale at Budget Auto Supply, you not only risk possible engine trouble - you risk losing warranty coverage for any oil-related failure that occurs. (See http://www.carmild.com)

* Use your transmission (manual or automatic) to "park" the car

The proper way to park your vehicle is to engage the parking brake before releasing the foot brake or putting the vehicle in "Park" (automatic-equipped vehicles) or releasing the clutch with the transmission in gear (manual-equipped cars). This way, the parking brake holds the weight of the car - not the transmission. If you don't do it this way, you risk breaking parts inside the transmission (expensive) or (less expensive, but annoying) finding it's hard to get the shift lever out of "Park" when you want to get going again. People have become stuck this way - and had to call AAA. Or had to arm-wrestle with the shift linkage for awhile before they were able to free the car. It's something that should never happen - because it's totally preventable.

* Drive fast (or far) on a space-saver spare

Many new cars come with temporary use only "mini-spares" designed for just that - temporary use only. They are not designed to let you continue driving as you were before the flat; they're designed only to let you keep on driving - at reduced speed and extra carefully - to the nearest service station. Most "minis" have warning labels that caution you not to exceed 55 mph or drive more than 100 miles (at the outside). The warning label will also usually tell you that your car may handle differently (read: less well) and that braking performance will be reduced (read: you will need more time to stop safely). The idea is to limp along to the tire store - grateful for any forward motion at all. Don't push your luck - or expect a temporary-use-only "mini" to do what a normal tire can do.

* Use tap water to top off your radiator (or battery)

Tap water can have impurities in it that you may not be able to see with your naked eye but which are nonetheless bad news for your car's cooling system. Unwanted chemical reactions can take place inside expensive-to-replace radiators and alloy engine parts. If you need to top off your car's cooling system, you should use distilled water - mixed in a 50-50 ratio with the appropriate anti-freeze (standard "green" or long-life "orange"). Never exceed 70 percent anti-freeze in the system. Top off the overflow reservoir - not the radiator itself (unless the vehicle has been sitting for at least a few hours and had time to cool down). If you do remove the radiator cap, always use a large towel to avoid being scalded by escaping steam/coolant. If you're stuck in the middle of nowhere and distilled water's not available, look for bottled water - it's at least filtered and should be more pure than ordinary tap water. Don't ever use bubbly mineral water under any circumstances.

Read more »