Tag: Cars

No It Isn’t

Drive Time

Here’s a new one:

On what planet are these people living?  (And I mean BOTH the manufacturer AND the person who wrote this review / headline.)

Let me start out with a basic premise:  minivans are not luxury vehicles.  (And I speak as someone who has owned… lemme see… three of the fucking things.)

They’re commonly referred to by various terms:  soccer-mom limos, kid-carriers, and the like.  They are not status symbols — which is what premium cars are — unless they are SUVs like Range Rovers, which at least have the capability (but very seldom the opportunity) to go offroad.  And an SUV isn’t a minivan, anyway.  Minivans — the term, even — have only two basic requirements:  hold a lot of passengers (the “van” part), and be economic and reliable, because gawd knows the sturm und drang  that follows Junior missing his important soccer tournament or Missy her ballet performance just because Mom Shuttle failed.

And for many years, minivans followed that formula, and everyone was happy.  Few people remember this, but Chrysler’s Plymouth (!) Voyager was by far the most popular thing on the lot — the company couldn’t make them quickly enough — and under the dictionary heading of “basic transportation” in any dictionary was a picture of the horrible thing:

And for those who don’t remember or weren’t in the target market, I recall that the Voyager’s basic model offered brakes and/or suspension as an optional extra.  “Basic”, they were, in spades.

For a young start-up family with their 2.7 kids (plus all the other members of the soccer team / Boy/Girl Scout troop / ballet company), the minivan was just the business, because it fitted their basic requirements without having to sell their kids to Jeffrey Epstein just to afford the down payment.

Of course, young families in the minivan target segment now consist of no Dad, a Mom and 0.27 kids (that modern-day demographics thing), which makes the actual need for a large passenger capacity irrelevant.  Moreover, thanks to Net Zero and Bidenomics (it’s with us still), mothers are often having to choose between one basic need over another because having both is economically unfeasible.  Let me go out on a limb here and say that a $115,000 minivan is not a serious option for them.

And there are only a few billionaire’s wives who might consider buying one of the above, and even then if they want to move their kids around, there are Range Rovers and Maybach (both around $200k !) SUVs that would a) fill the status quotient and b) actually carry more than a few kids besides.  Just not in the U.S. or U.K.

Sold only in China, the EM90 is designed for rear-seat passengers who have outgrown juice boxes but still rely on others to clean up their messes. Second-row captain’s chairs that look like they were sourced from Airbus’ business-class catalog transform the humble family wagon into a private jet for the road. Anyone headed to soccer practice in an EM90 likely owns the team and the stadium they play in.

Maybe there are lots of very affluent soccer moms in China, who knows?  And forgive me, but sub-Gen Z brats neither need nor deserve “business class” seats, either.  Fucking hell, what a shit show.

Finally, Volvo’s management (assuming they have one and don’t just make their decisions based on throwing multi-sided game dice) have been idiotic for some time, ever since they tossed the plain-‘n-simple 240D station wagon (remember them?) for more upmarket models (most of which failed despite being quite decent cars).  Volvo was then one of the first manufacturers to go “all electric, all the time” which has met with such resounding success.  (Ask Volkswagen, who are similarly brain-dead.)

Who knows?  I may be wrong and soccer moms everywhere will be lining up at Volvo dealerships to buy the stupid things for $115 thousand dollars apiece, but I doubt it.  The fact that the EM90 won’t be sold in the U.S. is a telling point.

Leaving Their Market Behind

Bureaucracy, Drive Time, Marketing / Advertising, Technology

In his latest video, Harry Metcalfe takes aim at supercars — or to be more specific, their manufacturers — and their ballooning love affair with technology.

Now Harry lives in a different world from pretty much 99.99% of the rest of the world, because the market for the insanely-priced supercars is absolutely minuscule;  and his point is that the market is shrinking still more.

I don’t care about any of that, and I’d bet good money that pretty much none of my Readers could give a rat’s ass about it either, for all sorts of reasons:

  • we couldn’t afford the frigging cars even with a decent-sized lottery win;
  • even if we could, we have too much common sense to spend that amount of money on an asset that depreciates, on average, about 50% per annum, regardless of how many miles you drive the thing;
  • and lastly, we all shrink from the Nanny Technology that takes away from the pure enjoyment of driving (not to mention the intrusive data harvesting and so on, which I’ve ranted about before ad nauseam).

I’m not even going to talk about how fugly all these new super/hypercars look, because that’s also a frequent target for my rants on these pages.

Lest you couldn’t be bothered to spend half an hour in Harry’s company, let me illustrate his point about car depreciation by looking at a car we all know about:  the Bentley Continental GT convertible (GTC, for the cognoscenti ).  Here is the 2024 model, with its 4.0L V8:

I have to say, by the way, that it looks absolutely gorgeous:  very definitely a worthy successor to the 1930s “Blower” “Speed Six” Bentley which won Le Mans several times.  It’s price, however, does not look absolutely gorgeous:  $340,000 with only a few adornments.

Which is bad enough.  Now let’s look at its second-hand value.  Here’s a 2015 GTC:

Looks more like a limo than the 2024 model, but essentially it’s the same car (same engine, same luxury interior, etc. etc.) but with… 15,000 miles on the odometer (about 1,500 miles per annum of ownership).  Its price:  $90,000 (!!!).

All sorts of things come to mind, most of them unprintable anywhere except perhaps on this website.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  there is no justification — none — that can justify the prices of these upscale cars (and of the supercars we will not speak because Ferrari and the other thieves only make a few of them each year, thus ensuring their consistent “value proposition” — read:  snob appeal for the terminally-insecure rich).

Of course, the thieves (and their sycophantic customers) will cry out that it’s all the new  whizz-bang technology (“All hail Technology!!!”) that makes their cost of manufacture rocket into the stratosphere.

Unfortunately, as Metcalfe points out in his video, more and more people are looking at all that technology, what’s involved and how much money (not to mention weight) that it adds to the car, and are saying, “Eeeeehhhh I don’t think so, Luigi.”

Which, by the way, might account for this atrocity:

Looks like the More Money Than Sense crowd are taking the $340 grand they would have dropped on a new jazzed-up Bentley, and instead splurging it on a rebuilt version of Ferrari’s entry-level model of the 1970s.

At least the Dino is bereft of anything that could remotely resemble a micochip.

There is a companion piece to this post:  it’ll appear next week.

Non-Starter

Corporate Fuckery, Drive Time, Eco-Crap

The old legend of Saxon king Cnut sitting in a chair on the beach attempting to stop the incoming tide by royal command is, of course, total bullshit.  Yes, he did that;  but he was attempting to show his idiot courtiers that his royal power had limits, and that there were forces over which no human authority had control.  It was far from being an object lesson in overweening pride and hubris (as it so often is used today), it was the precise opposite.

And here’s its modern-day manifestation.

Anyone with half a brain would have known that battery-powered trucks were a non-starter, for the simple reason that trucks aren’t cars:  they require power, lots of power, to move heavy loads, and sometimes over long distances or over power-demanding terrain withal.   Ferrying humans to and from the supermarket or soccer practice, sure.  Gadding about city streets, absolutely.  But that’s not what trucks were designed for.

So despite boutique efforts like Tesla’s dumpster-looking pickup (surely ol’ Elon was just having us on), all EV pickups were doomed to fail, as has just been proved:

Ford Motor Company is halting production of its electric F-150 Lightning pickup truck at a Michigan factory, the auto giant announced Thursday. Just three years ago, President Joe Biden and Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D., Mich.) visited the plant to celebrate the truck’s rollout, calling it an “incredible facility” that shows there’s “no limit to what American ingenuity and manufacturing can accomplish.”

Ford—which, like other major automakers, has struggled to keep its EV business afloat—will shutter the Dearborn, Michigan, manufacturing plant beginning on Nov. 18 and until Jan. 6, 2025. “We continue to adjust production for an optimal mix of sales growth and profitability,” the company said in a statement Thursday. 

Expect the plant to continue that suspension way past Jan 6, 2025 despite the weasel corporate-speak, because when it comes to pickup (or any other) trucks, EV production will never achieve an “optimal mix of sales growth and profitability”.  (As an aside:  anything hailed by FJB, including his choice for VP, has the automatic stench of failure about it.)

So here’s where the Cnut example becomes more relevant than ever:

Ford’s halt in F-150 Lightning production highlights the disastrous impact of federal EV mandates driven by the Biden-Harris administration,” Jason Isaac, the CEO of the American Energy Institute, told the Washington Free Beacon.

In other words, just because the .dotgov says it must happen, that doesn’t mean that it will.

We’ve seen it before with the laughable sustainable energy mandates, where wind- and solar power hasn’t even come close to expectations of consistent electrical delivery (nor will it ever, because — and I hate to repeat myself — anyone with a brain could have told these terminally-deluded dreamers of that outcome).

But control freaks of the ecological- and socialist persuasion [redundancy alert]  persist in thinking that if they simply order Net Zero to happen by x date, it will happen.

The collapse of the EV market is simply a signal — a foreshadowing, if you will — that as these idiots remain sitting stubbornly in their chairs on the beach, the tide is most assuredly coming in and will drown them.

We should be so lucky.

The problem is that these assholes are trying to force us all to sit with them.

“American automakers and workers are paying the price for policies that ignore real consumer demand,” Isaac continued.

…and it’s not just automakers and workers.  It’s everybody.

Old Vs. New

Drive Time

I know that I am irretrievably old-fashioned, and here’s the latest example.

Former footballer David Goldenballs Beckham was seen proudly showing off his new car, a McLaren 750S, valued at about £240,000 ($310,000).

Now never mind the stupid-money price (I know, the McLarens are supercars and probably worth it, just not to ordinary people like us.  Forget the money for a moment, if you can).

Now take a look at this nuts-and-bolts restored/upgraded 1964 Jag E-type Series 1:

It looks so hopelessly out of date compared to the 750S, doesn’t it?  And yet it’s on sale for a third less than the McLaren, at $218,000.

That’s also stupid money, but I have to tell you that if I had that kind of stupid money, I’d be driving that Jag already, and not the blingy over-powered and overpowering McLaren.  Just for kicks, know that the 750S needs to have its oil changed about every thousand or so miles, an operation which requires the engine to be dropped out of the engine bay, and can cost in excess of $25,000.  The Jag?  Nothing even close to that in cost, let alone inconvenience.  Hell, with a little learning and practice, you could probably do your own oil changes.  (Not that I would.)

Take a look at the Jag’s interior:

…compared to that of the McLaren:

Note the thoughtfully-placed accommodation for Goldenballs, or maybe it’s a pee-hole for Victoria in the passenger seat… either way, that interior looks like it was designed by LucasFilms.

Sorry, but no.  I love cars, I love performance cars, but to be honest — and this was as true back when I was younger as it is today — that wonderful Jag 3.8-liter engine, with its top speed of about 140mph is far more appealing than the million-horsepower McLaren electro-gizmoded powerplant.

And to be honest:  I think it’s far easier to get in and out of the E-type — and that’s a nod to my advanced age.

Beckham can afford the McLaren, and there’s no wealth envy on my part.  What I can’t forgive is that he gave his son an E-type for a wedding present — except that he’d had it converted to an electric motor.

Fakery

Drive Time, Old Fartism, Resistance

In a post earlier on in the week, I said this:

I often wonder what car or cars I’d get to replace the Tiguan, and what’s interesting is that I’m having precisely the same feelings that I have with guns and watches: nothing of recent manufacture at all — especially given that all the cars without exception are loaded with electronic gizmos I don’t care for, or else gizmos that spy on you and/or could possibly be used to control your driving. In fact, the more I think about it, I’d probably have to go back to pre-1970s cars — fully resto-modded of course — to find a car that has not a single computer chip in its driving operation.

The problems with finding a fully resto-modded car are that firstly, nobody’s going to bother restoring your beloved ’82 Honda Civic or Toyota MR2 because sheesh it’s not worth the money.  Secondly, of course, is that the cars that are worth restoring were spendy to start off with (so just getting your clapped-out 60s model Whatever fixed up is going to cost you nearly as much as, say, a brand new 2025 Honda), and once you factor in the cost of restoring a Dino, the end price is stratospheric.

Think I’m joking?  Here’s one such example:

1972 Ferrari Dino 246GTS

And the price (linked):  $570,000

Look, I love me my Dinos, as any fule kno, but I draw the line at a car that was Ferrari’s “entry-level” model back in the day now costing as much as a brand new Ferrari.  As my buddy Patterson would say, “Fuck that for a bunch of assholes.”

However, there may be a couple ways around this little problem.  Let’s use the example of the late 1950s-era Porsche 356.

A properly-restored original 356 looks something like this:

1957 Porsche 356A

And the price (linked):  $325,000

LOL no way, Bubba.

But then there’s an alternative:

This one’s price (linked):  $69,500

“Wait a minute, Kim,”  I hear you say, “At that price, it’s not been restored, so it’s a clunker.”

Actually, it’s a hand-built… replica, with a new 2.3liter VW engine that provides a stonking 145hp (as opposed to the original 356’s 60hp).

“But it’s not a Porsche engine!”

Yeah, but those old 1950s Porsche powerboxes weren’t much to write home about, and to be perfectly frank, they actually sounded like VW engines anyway.  And the VW engine is less finicky and gets better fuel consumption.

And best of all, its VIN establishes it as a 1973 VW, not a Porsche, so your insurance payments would be… close to zero.

I know… $70k is still a chunk of change.  But it’s brand new, hand-built, modernized in all the right places (brakes, suspension etc.), and it looks exquisite (if you like that old Porsche 356 shape;  New Wife thinks it’s “ghastly” but I think it’s at least nicer-looking than the hunchbacked 911 which replaced it).

And there are plenty of cheaper options, with (probably) lower quality, but whatever.

Me?  I think I’d be quite happy to pootle around town in one of these.  No intrusive spying, no stupid electronics, no “convenience” features, and no airbags.

At my age, it might just be a worthwhile tradeoff.