BAN Carpool Lanes!

They WASTE gas. They are BAD for the environment.

This is long, long overdue. It doesn't matter what we drive, just look at the consequences. The intent of the expressway system is to move as much traffic as possible in as little time as possible (at or close to the speed limit).

In this day and age of gasoline price changes, inflation, 3% raises (IF you're lucky!!), no raises at all, high cost of living, $25,000 sedans, etc., people WILL carpool and rideshare IF they are able. The incentive of rewarding that with a faster moving lane is counter-productive to the total need of all commuters.

The original intent of the carpool lanes is to encourage or reward people who share rides going to work. Let's look at who it penalizes:

1. Small company employees who statistically don't have co-workers living near them.

2. Families and people whose schedules require them to do things outside of the normal commute to work and home. This could include classes, errands, appointments, etc.

3. Any employee whose job requires travel (sales, repair, etc), regularly or sporadic.

5. "Flex-hour" employees who drive before 9am or after 3pm. It's unlikely a "flex-hour" employee is ride sharing but they still will encounter back-ups during those hours!

6. Any person who is "off" that day or works weekends and must plan on traffic back-ups during the week.

Now let's look at the NEGATIVE aspects of MORE cars forced into LESS lanes
means:

1. Longer back-ups burn more gas. Far more than the gas saved by the carpools

2. Longer back-ups cause more pollution.

3. Delays, pollution and burning more gas negatively effect the economy. The money spent could be channeled elsewhere.

4. Speed differentials in 2 different lanes is very dangerous due to visual perception, merging, etc.

Now, what about motorcyclists, electric vehicle and hybrid owners? Give them discounts in terms of taxation, registration fees, etc. The ride-sharing public? They already receive discounts by their act alone! They save money on gas and vehicle depreciation! They already benefit!

There is a real hypocrisy with hybrid SUVs and luxury sedans that become more efficient, but do not "save" gas vs. a smaller engine, smaller size sedan or minivans.

Germany saw an 80% REDUCTION in congestion on the Autobahn when a 3rd lane was added.

Here is another study I found, "
According to a 1995 State Highway Congestion Monitoring Program report
(the most recent year available), there was a total of 315,476 VHDPD
(vehicle hours of delay per day) on urban area freeways in California due
to "recurrent" congestion. Recurrent congestion is defined as a condition
lasting for 15 minutes or longer where travel demand exceeds freeway
design capacity. That typically means freeway speeds were 35 mph or less
during peak commute periods on a typical incident-free weekday.
"Non-recurrent" congestion is defined as backups caused by special
circumstances, such as accidents, stalled vehicles, sporting events, etc.
Studies show that non-recurrent delay can be equal or greater than
recurrent delay. The report found that recurrent and non-recurrent
congestion combined meant California motorists in 1995 used an extra 1.1
million gallons of fuel per day due to urban freeway congestion. The
increased travel time and extra fuel cost motorists about $5.9 million per
day. "

Excessive regulation will eliminate all cars

This is where its headed. Please put more people in Congress and SOMEONE in C.A.R.B. that knows automobiles, transportation and is sympathetic to the transportation needs of America AND the environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY

C.A.R.B. is the California Air Research Board. You know the geniuses who decided California should have lower Octane rated gasoline - 91 vs. 93, MTBE must be added to gas and caused a vast number of environmental issues. The push for small, ultra-efficient cars does not take into account the real world with 4+ member families who play sports, have hobbies and share the road with much larger vehicles at high speeds.

$100K for a 1992 ZR-1 is too high at Barret-Jackson

I've been impressed with SpeedTV's coverage of the recent Barrett Jackson Auction held in Scottsdale, AZ. If your primary interest is muscle cars of the past, the knowledge shared during the commentary has been excellent.

It seems more "watchable" than last year, although a DVR is a requirement to fast-forward through the commercials during 20+ hours of coverage. If not more.

I'll have more to say soon, but a write-up in AutoWeek, 1/26 issue caught my eye regarding the first 1992 ZR-1 Corvette fetching over $100k. I'll have to see it myself as I continue to look at the coverage.

Was it really worth it? Granted buying a car stored by the factory, and essentially sold from the factory has merit. But what is the significance?

The model run ended with 1993 models. The 405hp engines were stored after the 1991 model year for future installation. What is the big deal? The first 2006 Corvette Z-06 also fetched over $100,000 but at least that has some significance as a first year model. And its a far superior car from every standpoint.

If you're going to spend $100,000 on a fairly modern Corvette, the new ZR1 would be the obvious choice. From a collector standpoint, my guess is this 1992 model has little merit, and will only depreciate. First year or last year would have hope, but not 1992.

Laguna Seca to resolve important issue

A copy of recent correspondence with Laguna Seca regarding major delays during the ALMS race in October of '08 below. I must compliment them on addressing this problem and being so responsive.

Its vital that a track creates an environment that allows cars to quickly return to the race if they go off-track and remain drivable. Granted there are limitations but last year was particularly bad.

First my letter, then their response. Lastly, my reply:
________________________________________

As a regular attendee of races at Laguna Seca, I found the last ALMS race in October '08 to be particularly disappointing. The reason was due to the excessive number of caution flags AND the length of the the caution periods. I'm re-thinking attending certain events because of this.

I understand the runoff area must be MotoGP compliant for the motorcyclists. However, when this material is used for cars, it means disaster for the viewing public. When the cars become stuck in the sand when they should be able to drive out themselves, it makes for a poor race.

I will be curious to know what is planned for this coming season.

Also, why didn't Speed GT come to Laguna in '08? It's one of the better races to watch.
___________________________________________________

The Reply:

Rob – thank you so much for your e-mail.

Thank you for your feedback- trust me no one was more frustrated than we were - we realize that we need to do something to keep these guys on track - we have worked on a plan for this season that will accommodate and meet approval of both the FIA and FIM who both determine the safety elements of this track. It is a very expensive fix, but we anticipate having it in place for our May Festival of Speed event.

Even Tony Kanaan said, "They (gravel traps) are there just like in a street circuit there are walls so it is something you have to deal with. We are supposed to keep it on the track and not drive in the gravel."

We will do our best to fix it from our end - we need cooperation from the series also.

The Speed World Challenge has been scheduled again for 2009, we agree they are a fun series to watch and they now have new management that enabled us to bring them back.

Thanks again for your input and support Rob, we appreciate our fans and the ideas that you have.

Gill Campbell
CEO/General Manager
_____________________________________________
My response:

Hello Gill,

Thank you very much for your reply. I look forward to the new fix.

I agree with Tony Kanaan's statement, but gravel allows for more risk and going off track with some types of cars is going to happen, especially on a high speed circuit with some tight (narrow) areas and a field that varies in speed, braking distances and cornering speeds.

Can't wait for the new season. Thanks again!

AutoWeek Regurgitates GM's poor press release for the Corvette

AutoWeek regurgitates GM's poor press release.

AutoWeek just reported GM's announcement about the "Competition Sport Package" for the Corvette. This includes decals, badges, some body paint, different colored wheels and includes the Z51 package (different gearing, stiffer suspension and cross-drilled rotors, etc.). Also a 2.73 final drive ratio is reported. And did I mention "racing style" numbers?

There are some problems here. First, the "package" does NOTHING for performance than what is already available which is the Z51 option. It's strictly for appearance purposes.

Secondly, the 2.73 final drive ratio would make the car faster, but accelerate slower than the more performance oriented 3.42 final drive ratio. So is this a typo from GM? And why didn't AutoWeek comment on this?

This will NOT "wring" a little more performance out of their cars since the performance oriented parts are ALREADY available as an option. This is just marketing to bring back some more interest in the 6th generation Corvette since plans for the 7th (C7) have been delayed.

The Corvette is a world-class from a performance standpoint. A bargain in terms of bang-for-the-buck. So the final question is this: How many posers who DON'T track their cars are going to install the racing-style numbers? And will they be wearing gold chains too?

Edmunds makes a HUGE blunder!

I found this a while back and was amazed at what I read. I decided to summarize my findings to Edmunds in December of '08 but didn't receive a response. I think I know why. While Editor in Chief Karl Brauer seems like a nice guy, product knowledge wasn't his strong point in this case. And in his position, that is critical. As always, I'm offering my help.

Unfortunately Edmunds has a horrible reputation among enthusiasts regarding performance oriented vehicles. This example is exactly the reason why. They redeemed yourselves a little with the Challenger, but this was simply horrible. Probably the worst I've ever read in over 30 years:
www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=107369

"the Chrysler 300C SRT-8 we tested last year. That car pulled a 5.7-second 0-to-60 time and ran through the quarter-mile in 14.1 seconds at 105 mph. Putting the Charger through similar testing netted a 5.4 0-to-60 time while taking 13.5 seconds to clear the quarter-mile at 105 mph. With curb weight, tire size and gearing the same in both models we can only conclude that the Charger's cold-air induction is really working. Well, that and the usual variances between test vehicles and testing conditions." Did they even open the hood? See the 6.1 Hemi in the photo. No ram air.

Problems:
1. 300C result is the worst ET (elapsed time) ever published for an SRT-8.

2. 14.1 @ 105mph is obviously due to a very bad start or "launch" which indicates exceptionally poor driving or testing procedures.

3. Identical trap speeds means there is virtually no difference between vehicles and conditions. It is an indicator of identical horsepower.

4. 13.5 @ 105mph is suspiciously identical to Dodges' published time. And easily beaten by all owners at or near sea level with a good "launch". The trap speed is a little low however. Virtually the "big three" magazines have all recorded 108 to 109mph trap speeds when actually testing the car in good conditions. "Good" meaning cool air, low humidity, etc. Factors which "rob" horsepower.

5. Cold Air Induction does NOT reduce ETs, especially by .6 seconds! It may increase the trap speed by about 1mph, 2mph if very, very lucky. It is for a minimal gain in horsepower, not directly translating to a huge drop in the ET.

6. The Charger does NOT have cold air induction! The hood scoop is for cooling purposes only and does not feed into the engine air intake. Therefore, no power advantage. And if there was a power gain, the manufacturer would be required to have a higher horsepower rating.

7. The stability control can be fully turned off by depressing the ESP button and holding it for approximately 6 seconds.

This follow-up was hardly better. Not very good results on the track, and by the way, SRT-8s do NOT start in 2nd gear! Also, interesting commentary on the braking distance being significantly longer than the first test: 120ft vs. 135ft. And the Challenger did it in 119ft despite a softer suspension which would translate to more "dive" and possibly a worse weight distribution.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=121127

Finally the owners requested that the transmission automatically shift from 1st to 2nd at redline. Why? Because the tachometer readout was slower than the actual engine rpms and along with the response of manually shifting the automatic "Autostick" caused frequent and annoying delays by the engine banging off the rev limiter. The reason this was wanted was when maximum acceleration was desired. Not for doing ridiculous burnouts beyond 1st gear, which is useless and potentially harmful.

Quite frankly these reviews were atrocious. This goes to show you not only is product knowledge needed when reviewing cars, but also research, decent driving skills and communication with the factory. This was bad, really bad.

In all fairness to the brand and the magazine, the following tests weren't too bad. This test wasn't instrumented but it should be noted the wheelbase is 116", not 112". http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=124470/pageNumber=1?synpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/new/2009/dodge/challenger/101020245/roadtestarticle.html&articleId=124470

And this one was well done with good results: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=125459/pageNumber=1?synpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/new/2009/dodge/challenger/101020245/roadtestarticle.html&articleId=125459

The performance results of this manual transmission car were noted to be disappointing. I wonder if a software update would have resolved this problem from research I've done. http://www.edmunds.com/dodge/challenger/2009/testdrive.html

If Edmunds takes some minor steps, their relevance and reputation can raised to a level that will bring them more fans, more readers and more attention. I wonder if they are too mad to hire me?

Automotive magazines need help

A letter sent to Car & Driver magazine in response to the 1/09 issue.

Regarding the "Dirty Speed" comparison test, page 41 for the Cobalt SS.

The no-lift shift feature is a factory feature that should be included when conducting your performance tests. If it's engineered into the car, then it should be included. Not using a factory performance feature is a disservice to your readers, the manufacturer and a potential buyer reviewing the test results. You don't lift off the throttle when testing a DCT (dual-clutch transmission) equipped car, correct? This is absolutely along the same line of reasoning.

If you really want to provide an additional data point for your readers (and please, not online), you would reveal the difference in the test results between a lift-off of the throttle and the no-lift feature.

Additional Data Required:

C&D should make it a policy to publish the Road Test Review 6 times a year, perhaps on even-numbered months. Also, an online summary of all test results should be made available. There is a fast amount of information archived in hardcopy form, but it really should be made available online. C&D has always had great test procedures, it's time to make efforts from decades to present available.

Also, and I've requested this before, regarding the skidpad tests, please publish a table of the lateral acceleration measurement and how it translates to mph traveled. Also, what speed differential do you see when you sample the 1/4 mile speed of a car vs. the measured trap speed at a dragstrip (terminal velocity vs. a timed calculation of the last 60ft or so). These would be a great ways for readers to relate to the speed differential of various cars. These tables can be included in your Road Test Review listings.

Update 5/16/09: I thought of something else recently. Aerodynamics and the effect on mileage and performance. A value called a .cd or coefficient of drag is commonly given when describing the aerodynamic design of a car. A second and often ignored value is the frontal area. In other words, and I'm simplifying fluid dynamics hear, how much and how tall is the mass of the car going into the wind? What am I asking for? Supply a reference table showing the .cd x frontal area and how much of an effect it has on performance at various speeds. One idea is to show a table that displays how much horsepower is needed to match superior aerodynamics. And conversely, the mileage benefit.

If a 436hp Corvette and a 426hp Camaro SS is traveling at 150mph, how much do the aerodynamics effect each one? If a Prius could obtain 100mph (can it?) as well as the Tesla (it can), how much hp is needed for the Prius to maintain that speed vs. the Tesla in terms of the aerodynamic design of the car? It's the age of information, time to show it all.

Appealing to a wider audience:

More information is needed, perhaps a monthly guide, regarding dragstrip performance. For instance, you measure the 0-30mph time, but what about translating that to the 60ft time? How does tire inflation play a part in street tires? What does a Cold Air Induction (CAI) kit do for performance from both a standing launch and from a roll? Keep in mind this is a very common item offered by both OEMs AND the aftermarket. How about lowering kits in relation to skidpad and slalom performance? Handheld tuners vs. stock and various octanes used.

Although Car & Driver has been very good about reporting on racing for amateurs, mentioning the SCCA and NASA, the amount of participants in a 1 week time period in any given region at the dragstrip(s) far exceeds that of the SCCA and NASA in that given region. And these are mostly street-going, licensed cars. For example, Infineon Raceway (Sears Point), closes off the entrants at 300 cars for Wednesday night drags. Of the 14 or so staging lanes, at least 10 are for street cars. And many times for owners with the strip-only cars - they have street cars they take to the track for grins once in a while as well. There are 3 dragstrips within 100 miles of the Chicago area, I would be curious how many entrants they have over 7 days vs. the regional track events. Finally, most of the debates on the internet are regarding a cars straight-line performance as well.

I suggest polling the dragstrips to find out how many participants there are during the 7 day week. Additionally, polling the tire companies about their drag radial sales would be very interesting as well. This would lead to an interesting test comparing the 60fts, ETs and trap speeds

Motor Trend Car Of The Year - Wrong Choice

Found a few problems with MT's COTY choice. And as always, their photo resolution is lacking.

I found numerous problems and omissions with your recent COTY issue. Some of them inexcusable. The COTY process, Ferrari California and photo quality are the three items that need addressing.

Was the criteria for the Contenders and Finalists listed? The "Contenders" included a Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix. Why in the world were both "corporate twins" included? That made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Was there ANYTHING of significance revised regarding these cars?

Regarding the Challenger R/T. Why wasn't the SRT-8 model considered instead? It has more power, handles better, Brembo brakes, also now available with a 6-speed transmission AND limited-slip rear differential. Additionally, SRT-8 models offer the SRT-8 Track Experience.

If performance criteria was a factor, there were many other cars missing from the list which should have been finalists, especially reading their reviews in the same issue. For example, the ZR1 Corvette and the 7 Series BMW. Why weren't the following models considered: 370Z, BMW M3, Pontiac G8 GXP (vs. the GT like the Challenger R/T), Viper ACR and Solstice GXP (please, leave out the Saturn - corporate twins, you know?). These were serious errors of omission.

While the GT-R is an amazing car for the price, it is also a street-only car. It will probably never see a green flag in a sanctioned racing event, especially due to it's numerous driver's aids and undoubtedly because of it's excessive weight. If no longer AWD for racing, no DCT, no driver's aids, is it still a GT-R?

Notations about it's weight savings are laughable for a car with only 2 usable seats that weighs 3900lbs. It never set a record at the Nurburgring as quite a few sources have already exposed Nissan's 'Ring time that was obviously done in a more powerful car and the street tire question not entirely disproven either. Also, falsely representing the production car's ability in terms of power by not matching the pre-production model's 1/4 mile trap speeds in all the magazines. Remember the ZR1 #001 fetching over $1 million at Barrett-Jackson? How much do you think GT-R #001 would go for? And why is that?

Car & Driver magazine had an excellent article about the "real horsepower" of the GT-R. Funny thing was, their conclusion was WRONG. Their May '08 Road Test model (pre-production) hit 130mph 1.6 seconds quicker than the next fastest model (12.1 vs. 13.7) tested in September '08. That is an enormous margin. Clearly the pre-production model tested at the Nurburgring was much more powerful than what is for sale in the real world.

Also, what about the Ferrari California? Numerous "firsts" for Ferrari: dual-clutch transmission that is probably the best on the market, a folding hardtop, direct injection and a front-engine V8. How could that be passed up for consideration? Pricing? A $75,000 Nissan that should be sold at Infiniti dealers isn't exactly affordable either.

But the worst part about the Ferrari California? The statement that it looked better with the top up. And not ONE photograph with it's top up! Inexcusable!

This brings me to the final observation. It's quite obvious MT has a lower resolution photographs in numerous articles compared to your competition. This have been happening for a long time. I suggest MT bring it's visual quality back to a competitive level.

Nissan GT-R sets record at the 'Ring. Oh Really?

The Nurburgring in Germany is the long, fast and incredibly varied track that is used by manufacturers for performance and reliability testing. Elevation changes galore. Check out the recent Road and Track magazine for a nice write up.

Nissan claimed they clocked a 7:29 with a GT-R. I don't doubt it was a GT-R. It was NOT a production-level powered GT-R.

While the variance at the 'Ring in lap times can be huge, others parties are finding 7:29 is not realistic for a 480hp, 3900lb car. AWD or not. Even on production tires. My guess is this monster was making close to 600hp to test the durability and effectiveness of the cooling, braking, suspension and transmission components. After all, check out some other 'Ring times: http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=y&gID=3&fID=0&tID=10073 a great reference.

Porsche said they couldn't come within 25 seconds of Nissan's claim. Other sources seem to lean more heavily in Porsche's favor.

Edit: Perhaps it was stock, but the 7:08.679 was from a non-stock, non-production equipped car with a special package that isn't street legal and dealer installed.

Pontiac's magnum opus in Motor Trend leaves more questions

Motor Trend recently tested the soon-to-be orphaned Pontiac G8 GXP and left some questions unanswered. Orphaned because it was reported today, April 24th, 2009, that the Pontiac nameplate is being dropped. How unfortunate for another excellent domestic (though imported) car. The GXP is a fantastic bang-for-the-buck sedan but now there will be questions left unanswered. Unfortunately, it looks like we only get to enjoy it for one model year unless Chevrolet picks it up. And they absolutely should.

I must commend Motor Trend for instrument testing both the manual and automatic transmission versions. This is very rare in the automotive media arena. But it also dictates more extensive coverage. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0902_2009_pontiac_g8_gxp_first_test/index.html

First, a clarification. the LS3 engine in the GXP is not the second most powerful version, it's actually the third and sixth in the LSX family. The C6 Corvette has two versions that are more powerful at 430hp and 436hp with the exhaust option. The LS7 in the Corvette Z-06, the LSA in the Cadillac CTS-V and the LS9 in the Corvette ZR1 are all much more powerful and top the list in the family.

Related to this, the octane requirement is reported to be "regular" or 87 octane, GM media online states it requires premium.

The rear diffuser was called "fake". How so? BMW made a less obvious yet purposeful change to the tail light surface on the 6-series for aerodynamic reasons, so how is the diffuser fake? Have you ever noticed the scallops on the bottom surface of mufflers? This is for aerodynamic reasons as well. Take a look at the diffuser on the 190mph+ Lamborghini Gallardo - it isn't very significant looking.

When a car is advertised as, "Simply the fastest, most powerful Pontiac ever" that pretty much obligates a top speed test, doesn't it? But it wasn't listed, why is that? Also, AutoWeek report the top speed was limited due to cooling reasons. What are the details regarding this lack of cooling?

Now that cars with six, seven or even eight speed automatics perform so closely to their manual transmission counterparts, the clear performance advantage of the manual has effectively been equalized. But once again, when testing them together, further analysis is mandated.

There are a few more questions regarding weight and braking. The weight differential between the two models is 74lbs or almost 2%. Yet the weight distribution is listed as being identical. How can this be? It doesn't have a rear transaxle. The 74lbs differential is definitely not over the center of the car. Finally the braking distance delta is 6ft. Is this accepted statistical variance or due to the weight differential? What is the typical variance found in braking tests?

So while this is Pontiac's best car ever, it is also quite low in domestic content. If similar to the G8 GT, it is roughly 8% if memory serves from a listing in AutoWeek a few months ago. Also, doesn't the previous generation CTS-V make the GXP somewhat redundant? Nicer interior, handles better, braking performance is probably better, it's lighter, essentially the same power, more aggressive gearing and it competes in the SCCA T2. The GXP could race in that class, but it is a bit heavy. The CTS-V may take the trophy again this year too, when big horsepower cars will give the Solstice GXP (another Pontiac) all it can handle at Road America, one of the fastest road circuits in the country.

This brings us to my final point. Motor Trend must stay relevant in this age of information by digging deeper, disclosing testing procedures, guidelines, atmospheric conditions and acceptable statistical variance.

We may never see a four-door car like this from GM again and I wonder, should they have just used the last generation CTS-V platform? Would it have mattered?

Pontiac G8-based ST cancelled. Why started?

Another recent contribution:

Pontiac recently announced it will not offer the G8 sedan-based sport utility, the G8 ST. Hopefully this sad little thought never made it beyond the drawing board.

The days of the El Camino are unfortunately long gone. While wildly appealing to a few (I guess), even the superior utility of the Dodge Magnum wasn't enough. The ST would never sell in volume necessary to support the business case. And we all know how important that is to GM and the others.

An open-bed vehicle is designed for large or heavy loads that usually don't need protection from the elements. Other intentions are towing, higher ground clearance and the option of 4wheel drive for non-paved surfaces. The ST offered little, if any of this. And it was only a two seater. Just look at how well the larger SSR sold. At least the Magnum offered the utility of a mid-size SUV (with far better handling, braking and arguably mileage).

The ST never should have left the drawing board.