Category: Drive Time

As Long As You Look Mahvelous…

Drive Time

Some time back, I was watching some EewwChoob thing about cars that looked good but were absolute rubbish, either to drive or because they were completely unreliable.  I can’t find the video, of course, because Internet Confusion, but here’s a short list of cars that I wish had been made properly — i.e. with today’s machining, fit and electricals — so that one could drive them for a long distance or time without having to have a mechanic/towing service on speed dial, and drive them without impaling yourself on a tree at the very first kink in the road. I’ve left off the Usual Suspects (e.g. the E-type, Ferrari 246 and various Astons, because I’ve looked at them often enough).  Also, because they’re mostly tourers, to be driven for long distances in comfort, I’ve set aside my normal disdain for cabrios and soft-tops.

They’re not in any specific order, pretty much just as they came to me.

Triumph Stag
One of the best-looking touring cars ever made, the Stag was uniformly horrible, not the least because of Both Mr. Free Market and Drummer Knob had a Stag;  as I recall, Knob exchanged his for a Mini-Cooper (!), while Mr. Free Market’s memorable quote was:

“Dear boy, that Stag used so much oil that every time I put my foot down, I shifted BP’s share price two points.”

But…

As Jeremy Clarkson says, it still looks good, even today.  With the Rover (a.k.a. Buick) 3.6-liter engine, it might have been a world-beater except for the fact that it would rust faster than a Lancia.

Jensen Interceptor
One of the best names ever for a car.  The 1972 Jensen MkII is my favorite, with the Chrysler 7.2-liter (443 cubic inch) V8.  Built properly, with today’s machining, finishing and wiring, I’d take one in a heartbeat.

Getting the cabrio would leave off that PITA big rear window, but in either guise the Interceptor just looks fantastic.

Maserati 350 Vignale (1964)
I think Maserati has always made superior tourers (as opposed to sports cars), and this one is no exception.

Alas, like all Italian cars of that era, they suffered from and Terminal Rust Condition, but if you could address those two problems as above, the idea of setting off across Europe or the U.S. behind that wonderful 3.5-liter straight six… oh, man.

Sunbeam Alpine MkI Drophead (1953)
Why would I want to drive this oldster with its silly 2.3-liter 95hp four-banger engine?  Because it’s the car in which Cary Grant seduced Grace Kelly in To Catch A Thief, is why.  Also:

Actually, being underpowered was the least of the Alpine’s problems.  It suffered from post-war to such a degree that no two were ever wired the same way, and in some cases they used metals other than copper (Britain still suffering from post-WWII shortages of copper even though other nations e.g. Italy and Germany weren’t), with MTBF* often measured in hours.  The steering was totally shit, and the suspension was given to breaking when going over so much as a driveway entrance.

The saloon version won several rally races, but that was because they were modified beyond recognition.

But the drophead looks mahvelous, hence its inclusion in this post.

Which old cars would you like to see, resto-modded / remanufactured?  (Limit three per comment.)

*Mean Time Between Failures

Fire This Asshole

Drive Time, Wokism

Last Sunday was the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance, whereby car enthusiasts converge on the famed golf course and drool over the various examples of automotive gorgeousity strewn around like a rich man’s carelessly-scattered diamonds on green velvet.

Here are a couple other examples:

Iso Rivolta:

Ferrari Pininfarina:

And all was well in the land, until this little Wokist twerp got in on the act:

Let’s get two things cleared up before we continue. The first is that while the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance is certainly far from the most momentous cultural event of the year, it is the most prestigious car show anywhere in the world. For a few days in late summer, the 18th fairway at the Pebble Beach golf course is the very highest point for any rich person who covets vintage cars, and the highest honor for any person working in the business of restoring classics.
The second is that Mercedes was not just a car company that was busy at work doing normal car stuff during the time in which Nazis were in power in Germany. Mercedes was an early and direct supporter of Adolf Hitler long before he took power, helping him out while he was still an outsider figure in Bavarian politics. When Hitler got out of prison in 1924, he got picked up in a Mercedes-Benz.

Ergo, says this girlyman, we should not have the 540K as the winner because it was driven by Nazis.  Here’s the car in question:

And then this:

This is exactly how this car is seen in this world of the mega-rich: an encapsulation of “the optimistic mood” of Germany in 1934. Let us ask: for whom was this an optimistic time, and who is the kind of person who looks back on that time now, remembering its icons for their … optimism? Rich people, that’s who.

Wow… wealth envy and oh-so laudable “anti-Nazi” sentiment all wrapped up in a neat little bundle.  Read the whole thing to get the RCOB that Longtime Reader Ken S. warned me I’d get, when he sent it to me yesterday.  And I did.

Even better is that the writer suffers from the usual hypocrisy of his ilk, in that he owns a… Volkswagen Beetle, surely the most Hitlerish of all German cars of the 1930s.

So just for the hell of it, feast your eyes on a couple other examples of this eeeevil car:

And to hell with this wokist revisionism.  Let’s just enjoy the automotive excellence.

Pity, though:  I used to enjoy reading Jalopnik.

Automotive Control

Drive Time, Gummint, Nannies

Over the past couple years, I’ve taken a lot of guff from people when I’ve stated my implacable hostility towards the Internet Of Things [spit]  intruding on my private life, and specifically when it comes to my car.

“Oh but Kim,”  the response comes, “think of the convenience of not having to drive!” , etc. etc.  My retort to giving up control of one’s vehicle is usually, “Giving up control to whom, exactly?”

Well, here’s a little example of what I could see was coming down the pike:

The bipartisan infrastructure bill includes a provision that would require auto manufacturers to equip “advanced alcohol monitoring systems” in all new cars.
Buried in the massive proposal—which is already longer than 2,700 pages—is a section titled, “ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY,” which mandates new vehicles include “a system that … passively and accurately detect[s] whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration” of .08, in which case the system would “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.” Automobile manufacturers would have a three-year grace period to comply with the regulation.

Here’s another prognosis to this already-ghastly invasion of our privacy:  it won’t stop at “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation”.   Given the all-pervasive network of operations from Skynet, what is to stop the government (federal, state, local or a combination thereof) from levying a fine for drunken driving (to be deducted automatically from your bank account), as well as sending your car’s GPS coordinates to Officer Friendly at Hometown P.D.?

Tell me I’m exaggerating or overstating the thing, I dare you.

But it’s all for our own good, isn’t it?  So why would I be so upset about this?  After all, seatbelt mandates have saved countless lives, so why not apply the same rationale for car immobilization and punishment for intoxicated driving?

By all means, let’s all get upset when the government suggests implanting computer chips into guns so that they can be controlled by law enforcement during times of emergency — “That’s like totally beyond the pale, dude.”

This car nonsense is precisely the same thing, being suggested for all the same reasons.

I foresee a rush towards the purchase of older cars which don’t contain computers of any description — until, of course, the government outlaws ownership thereof.

Once again:  tell me I’m exaggerating or overstating the thing, I dare you.

Before Chips

Drive Time

Inspired by the post above, let’s assume that you could get your hands on three mint-condition (as-new, restored or even resto-modded) cars which were made without an onboard computer (say, for the sake of argument, before 1986), which three vehicles would you choose?  (Ignore price and maintenance costs for the sake of the exercise.)

You can have a truck, car, SUV, or any combination (two cars, one truck;  truck, car and SUV;  three trucks, etc.).

Mine:

1.)  1984 Mercedes 300 D Geländewagen W460

With a towbar and a/c, that’s my go-to truck/SUV combination.

2.)  1962 Jaguar E-type 3.8 Fixed Head Coupé

‘Nuff said.  And for a luxury, effortless drive:

3.)  1975 Mercedes 350SE W116

All day, baby.

Your choices (with reasons, if wanted) in Comments.

The Other Ferrari

Drive Time

An email from Reader Larry F asks:  “I know you love the Dino 246, but you also admit that they’re not that great to drive.  If you could have any recent Ferrari (produced since the Dino), which one would you choose?”

That’s actually an easy one.  The only Ferrari I’d care to drive today (other than the Dino 246) is the last model Ferrari offered with a stick shift, the 599 GTB of the early 2000s.

Here’s a comparison of the two:

I need to make a couple of points, though.  One of the things I love about the earlier Ferraris like the Dino is that they’re small and nimble.  After that they started growing and growing, until we finally arrived at elefanti  like the 599.  Here’s the comparison between the Dino and the 599 (l-r):

 

By comparison, the Dino is the nimble teenager while the 599 is its fat-ass Italian mama.

Of course, the power is not comparable, the 246 GT’s V6 192hp being dwarfed by the 599’s V12 612hp (which it needs to get that extra 1,600lbs moving).  I wouldn’t care about acceleration (0-60:  7.0secs vs. 3.7secs) or top speed (148mph vs. 208mph) unless I were at Spa-Francorchamps, which is never gonna happen.

I’ve never driven the 599, but it’s probably a lot easier to handle than the Dino, so there’s that.

But in looks, the Dino still wins by a country mile.  The 599 looks like a fatter Mazda Miata RF:

YMMV.

Statistical Bollocks

Drive Time, Numbers & Statistics

Did you know which is the most dangerous interstate highway in the U.S.?  (I’ll let you ponder that for a moment.)

According to this study, it’s Interstate 45 — with five accidents per 100 miles — which runs from Dallas to Galveston via Houston.

Which, as any fule kno, is complete nonsense — what statisticians call “bullshit” — because I-45 is also one of the shortest highways in the U.S.  And yes, it’s busy.  But ask any Texan whether they’d rather drive from Dallas to Austin on I-35, or on I-45 to Houston (about the same distance) and 35 would lose by a landslide.

But I-35, you see, is a long interstate highway (running from Laredo TX all the way north until it dies out of sheer boredom somewhere in Minnesota), so its deadliness is mitigated by long stretches of nowhere in which nothing happens (I’m looking at northern Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa, for example), so its deaths / mile count drops substantially.  Hell, I’d rather drive on the Long Island Expressway than the distance between Dallas north to Denton on I-35.  (I’ve done both, more times than I can count, and there’s no comparison.)

And for sheer white-knuckle terror, consider I-40 from California to wherever it ends on the East Coast…

Be careful of numbers, folks:  they often lie.  And by the way, the article itself is, quelle surprise, complete bollocks too because they use two totally different measurement metrics — deaths per 100 miles (distance), and deaths per million passenger-miles — which are completely different.  But hey, it’s the Daily Mail.