Pacific Coast Dream Machine show review

This well-known car show was held on April 26, 2009 at the Half Moon Bay Airport on the coast of Northern California off of Highway 1. A great deal of variety was the main attraction in the author's opinion. From modern to to classic, aviation to monster trucks and choppers, it had something for everyone. http://www.miramarevents.com/dreammachines/directions.html It is very close to the location for the Mavericks surf competition: http://www.maverickssurf.com/

In years past, easiest way to go was by motorcycle via Highway 1, skipping 92 due to the heavy traffic. Even then cutting lanes was needed due to the excessive lines. This year the motorcycle wasn't needed, but many chose this option. Instead, taking the car from San Jose to 84 to the coast and then northbound proved to be a great route. Not only that, the backup to turn into the show parking area was about 3 cars long, instead of 3 miles.

One unusual aspect, besides the excellent variety of vehicles, was that there was really no perceptible rhyme or reason to where they were placed. So a brand new Dodge Challenger could be parked next to a ratted-out old roadster with scary costumed mannequins in the seats. A bit surprisingly the new Camaro wasn't there, or maybe not since a large dealer locally has only delivered about six as of Memorial Day weekend. But there were imports, classics, you name it. There is something else special about this show too.

The motorcycles did happen to park together and while few, were particularly impressive in the level of customization, even enough to stand out at a custom bike show. A Rat Bike or two provided some humor as well. If you wanted to see a lot of bikes, walk the bike parking area.

While the show was quite spread out around the grounds of the airport, there was a very good and enthusiastic blues band playing at the food area. One tip for next year: Check out the food area at the aviation display before deciding where to get food, they had BBQ there!

Speaking of the aviation display, the warbirds from World War II were on display as well as some others types of propeller aircraft. Unfortunately I can't name them. But you could walk right up to them and touch them. After looking at hundreds of cars, the size of these fighter planes from the 1940s was impressive. The nine-cylinder engine up close behind the propeller looked ominous. One thing had me wondering though - the exposed hoses and wires apparently were pretty safe from air turbulence at 400mph. It just seems even more hazardous than driving without a hood on your car.

There were fly-bys of various planes which is always cool. A P-51 Mustang, flying or parked has got to be one of the most nostalgic and patriotic sights in aviation history. Helicopter and airplane rides were offered as well. However, the twin-engined plane that looked like it was from the 1950s didn't have a comforting engine note to us. Yes, I'm sure it was perfectly safe and the passengers loved it, but to this car enthusiast, the engine note sounded like a cylinder was missing. We decided to stay on the ground.

In the center grass area there was monster truck demonstrations and rides (off road use only, hah!) as well as some sort of a grass-surfing on an engine and snowmobile track type of competition. Falling off was almost inevitable so it looked like a lot of fun and a short "dragstrip" to keep injuries to just face-splitting grins and scuffs from the tumbles.

Vendor displays were varied as well. Cool sunglasses, motorcycle clubs and model cars made sure there was something for everyone. Jason with Crown Deluxe sunglasses had something unique vs. the knock-offs you see at every show: http://www.crowndeluxe.com/

Over the years I've always felt a sense of frustration during and after shows like this. Sure, you probably think it is a form of envy. Actually no, even when I was younger and didn't know I would never own many of the cars I saw, it came from something else. What I was feeling was a discomfort that I couldn't hear and see these cars run. It was like looking at a piece of art and engineering that remained silent and immobile despite an inherent purpose to move, and move fast with a great soundtrack. This show doesn't seem to have strict judging rules, if at all. So when the wide-body Jaguar with the monster Ford 427 cammer motor started up and tossed us all some revs, it made everyone within earshot smile.

Leaving show was easy too despite seemingly well attended. There are some good restaurants just south of the show and it seems watching cars leave belonging to both the spectators and the entrants is becoming a small event itself. One last tip, if you head back south, 92 was backed up heading back east. Take Highway 1, a perfect solution to end the day.

The autotragic Camaro SS

GM has handicapped the new Chevrolet Camaro SS with the optional automatic transmission with 26 less horsepower than the six speed manual version. This is an unusual decision in this day and age. The automatic has come a long way, why penalize a halo muscle car that is making its return after a seven year absence?

The Camaro SS automatic is rated at 400hp and its engine is called the L99 vs. the manual called the LS3. The LS3 is also in the Corvette and the Pontiac G8 GXP. The L99 has an Active Fuel Management System that shuts off cylinders when power demand is minimal. However it also redlines 600rpm lower than the manual and is EPA rated at 25mpg vs. the manual's 24mpg. http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/16/2010-chevrolet-camaro-rated-at-29-mpg-highway/ Granted it is an impressive switch since automatics are almost always rated lower. But the appeal of this car is horsepower. Would buyers of $32k muscle car coupes really care that their automatics get slightly worse mileage than their manual counterparts? No.

"Autotragic" is a moniker for cars with an automatic transmission for several reasons, past and present. Reasons included power loss due to the indirect connection to the engine, sluggish shifting, less gears and in the past, even a lesser horsepower rating than the "stick shift" counterparts. Of course consistency on the dragstrip is an advantage, but it is unsuitable for road circuit racing. Slushbox is another nickname for the automatic tranny...
Even in the nineties, the automatic transmission wasn't exactly a big performance penalty and cars like the Corvette and Camaro. While slower than their manual counterparts, they still had good performance figures. The Toyota Supra twin turbo was also considered a strong performer with what was considered one of the stoutest automatic transmissions on the market.
Today automatics have up to 8 forward gears (Lexus) and the power loss gap has closed from decades past with lock-up torque converters among other advances. Mercedes has only offered an automatic for years in their cars. From the early 350hp or, non-supercharged E55 to the 670hp twin turbocharged V-12 SL65 AMG Black Series http://www.mercedes-amg.com/webspecial/sl65blackseries/ These cars are fully respected and have a lot of credibility on the street and even on the dragstrip.

Another oddity about the Camaro horsepower downgrade is its corporate siblings the Corvette and Pontiac G8 GXP both share the same engine but the automatic version has the same horsepower rating. The reason most likely has to due with the technology and hardware for the cylinder deactivation. It sure isn't due to reliability, the G8 and Corvette frame the Camaro in horsepower and weight, and this transmission isn't on the hairy edge longevity. That would be a disaster. Years of Corvette drag racing seem to support this. Currently the "fast list" is on page 205. Look at all the automatics ("A6" means automatic in the list) http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-tech-performance/1893326-c6-1-4-mile-performance-challenge-205.html

What owners of $32k muscle car coupes with a modern paddle-shifted automatics do care about is horsepower. Penalizing the automatic is a mistake. Put the technology in trucks and SUVs if it works in those heavier vehicles, or develop it to equal the manual in horsepower output. But when it comes to the best "bang for the buck" on the market today, don't create the need for an asterik for years to come when potential buyers and owners consider the Camaro SS.

NO to 200mph on the shore. Alameda mile proposal denied

After reading about and seeing what looks like a really cool and fascinating type of racing in Florida, Texas and Utah, I thought, why in the world can't we do it here locally? The airstrip in Alameda, California is under utilized but well known.

Alameda Point is along the eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay. These are old Naval air strips are where the TV show Mythbusters films many of their vehicle experiments. http://www.alameda-point.com/ and http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Alameda+Point,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.66491,78.75&ie=UTF8&ll=37.785436,-122.317743&spn=0.031814,0.076904&t=h&z=14 The movie Matrix Reloaded had it's highway scene filmed there as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix_Reloaded

One mile racing is gaining in popularity and notoriety. What is it and why is this happening? I'll explain and give a few theories. A one-mile race is exactly what it says. It isn't so much of a test of the elapsed time like the quarter-mile dragstrip, but rather what speed can the solo running vehicle can obtain. So how fast can a production car go in a standing mile? Less than 200mph for all practical purposes, possibly excluding the Bugatti Veyron and maybe the Koenigsegg CCX. A great Top Gear episode had the Dodge Challenger SRT-8 hitting 150mph, the new Cadillac CTS-V 160mph and the 638hp Corvette ZR1 170mph on the Bonneville Salt Flats.

Why is becoming more popular? I've got a few ideas. First, as I've written before, traction management is an issue with powerful cars. When drag racing, in order to to achieve the best result possible, traction is absolutely essential. Since the one mile is about speed, tire spin and a prolonged, spinning standing start are not as detrimental. It isn't about quickness, it is about speed obtained. Many times the fastest trap speed obtained in the quarter mile doesn't have the quickest or best elapsed time.

Related to traction management, the skill needed to shift quickly is also reduced in importance for a good result. We can't all shift like "Ranger". http://www.rangeracceleration.com/, and access to a dragstrip is sometimes a challenge. Many owners of the cars entered would rather not wait around to get a run in that is abusive to the clutch and tires while having to wait next to a punk kid whose ghetto'd-out Mustang has a challenging and crude profanity for a bumper sticker. I've personally seen it, and you get my point.

Another factor is the magic question, "How fast can it go?" You get a pretty neat answer in one mile. While it isn't the vehicle's top speed, at least bragging rights are documented. Exceeding the speed limit for over 7/8ths of a mile with the "go" pedal buried is pretty cool too. You may have seen the show Pinks! http://www.speedtv.com/programs/pinks with more than a few of these older muscle cars having various mechanical failures. Imagine what would happen if some of these less-than-optimal aerodynamic machines go wide-open-throttle (WOT) for 30 seconds or so instead of 10? The likely change in their overall gearing in itself would be interesting.

If dragstrips are closing due to insurance and the need for land, these airstrips tend to just sit unused except in the case of Mythbusters http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html and a few others. The best organized event that I know of, and the most famous and impressive is the Texas Mile http://www.texasmile.net/ for $195. For those with the money but don't want to run their car or are just curious, for $4,495, you can rent and drive among the fastest in the world in a rolling start: http://worldclassdriving.com/events/extreme_events_200mph and reported here: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090410/FREE/904109993

I thought why not use Alameda Point? No riff-raff at $200 plus for participants, lots of fast and exotic cars in the Bay Area that don't see the dragstrip and rarely see the road circuit at Laguna Seca, Sears Point or Thunderhill. And if liability is a concern, limit it to street-licensed and registered vehicles only. Charge an admission fee and suddenly you have a revenue generator.

Well I wrote to Alameda Point and as the title states, I was denied. Below is the response I received from the Property Manager:

"I have been asked by Ms. Potter to respond to your email. Over the years we have received similar requests for use of the runway. In each case we have had to turn down these requests for a couple of reasons. The first is that the Navy has several environmental remediation projects in process in the area, one of which crosses the runway at the west end. Another reason is the way the boundaries between the wildlife refuge currently supporting two endangered species, the California least tern and the California brown pelican, are demarked by fencing which also take up a portion of the runway area, meaning that none of the runways are available for use in their total length. For these reasons, we cannot approve your request for high speed acceleration tests at Alameda Point.If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Mike Hampen"

I followed up with a request for a .5 or .25 mile length for a standard or 1/8th mile dragstrip usage. Both were denied.

Photo: One of approximately eighty Bugatti Veyron Targa Editions at the 2008 Pebble Beach Concours D'elegance. Estimated price, $1.9 million. A good choice for attempting 200mph in one mile?

Axe the CTS Coupe, GM

That's right, the upcoming Cadillac CTS coupe is going to fail. GM should stop further development on this car before it becomes another loser in the automotive financial model.
http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/landing.jsp?model=cts&year=2009 Why? Because there are far, far more appealing alternative two-doors in the market.

This is my prediction. Quite frankly I'm sick and tired of seeing failures by GM, the demise of Pontiac, the disbanding of their performance division and the cancellation of the Camaro Z/28. Read further regarding that.

No doubt this will be a very nice car based on the CTS sedan. The performance will be average at best and the styling, while somewhat unique, may be awkward. That is an opinion, but coupes don't do well unless they stand out. This one doesn't. But unless the sales of the 'V' version support the research and development of the coupe, and that is highly doubtful, it will be more egg on their face. My heart goes out to the development team but senior product development is either polling the wrong market group or simply not listening.

The high-performance 'V' version will do better. Most likely in the mid $60k to $70k range and 556 horsepower like its four-door sibling, it offers a compelling argument because of its performance. I just don't think the CTS-V coupe will sell enough copies to justify the existence of the platform.

See, coupes are a discretionary buy now more than ever. Not only is it rare for a coupe to be a daily driver, there better well be a compelling reason like styling, performance, etc. And if you can get more for less money, you've got a serious competitive disadvantage.

The reasons the base CTS coupe will fail are numerous. The sedan base price is $37,585. So realistically it's a $40,000 to $48,000 coupe depending upon option groups. What is the appeal? Here it is competing against the new best bang-for-the-buck Camaro SS in the mid/upper $30k range with iconic styling and far better performance, also with usable rear seats. http://www.chevrolet.com/allnewcamaro/#camaro=build-your-own
GM competing against itself? Well take a look at entire GM fiasco of impractical duplication of platforms with different nameplates You know, goodbye Pontiac....

When you're in the $40k range and you can get away with a two-door, a new or used sixth generation Corvettes are the next step in value for performance with great styling. And you better believe in this day and age, at over $40,000, there are some phenomenally attractive used cars available, not to mention new. http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette/?seo=goo__2008_Chevy_Retention__IMG_Chevy_Corvette__Corvette_Website__corvette_website
Then there is the Dodge Challenger reviving the classic muscle car from long ago with instantly recognizable styling. http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/challenger/It also has better performance with usable rear seats.

Ford's answer? The never discontinued Mustang GT. Featuring some improved refinement and interior styling for 2010, $30k for the GT or the monster GT500 in the mid $40s quite frankly makes the CTS coupe look like a photoshop exercise. http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/models/ You know what, when you have 540hp for $47k, who cares about usable rear seats? If you need practicality, you're probably not shopping a coupe.

And imports? The entire BMW 3series lineup, especially the 335i and if you're going to spend $40k+ on a second car, there is a good chance $70k isn't too scary for the M3. http://www.bmwusa.com/Default.aspx

Back to the V. It is something special because of its performance. A really cool alternative to someone shopping for a Vette or Porsche but desires (vs. needs) some practicality. And it undercuts the competition from Mercedes and BMW significantly. The M6 is $100k: http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/vehicles/2010/m/m6coupe/default.aspx and the M3 isn't a whole lot cheaper and will be slower in a straight line. http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/vehicles/2009/m/m3coupe/default.aspx The owner of, and I'm guessing here based on the obesity suffered by cars lately, a 4200lb coupe probably isn't too worried about his tire or brake wear at Laguna Seca hot lapping right behind his BMW M3 buddy. And that is making a big assumption it even gets on the track.

The problem is that the V most likely needs standard CTS Coupe sales to justify its existence. So GM, please tell us differently. But I think GM already told us something different. The cancellation of the Camaro Z-28. Lighter than the CTS-V Coupe, same engine, better styling. It wasn't cancelled to save money. The platform is rockin', the car is in demand. It was cancelled because it would take away from the CTS Coupe and even worse, the V. http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090323/CARNEWS/903239993

Surf on autotrader for 2door coupes in the $40k to $50k range. http://www.autotrader.com/ And if you like cars, you'll start to drool. Audi S5, Mercedes CLKs, Corvette Z-06, Vipers! Gorgeous cars, established coupes. Hey, I heard about a guy who cancelled his order for a Ferrari Scuderia, possibly the best sports car in the world due to the economy and concern about possible depreciation. It has hit everyone. GM, stop it. Just stop it now. Wrong car, wrong economy, bad timing.

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_CTS

Air Conditioned race cars - where is the coverage and carry over?

Yes it's true. The American LeMans Series, the premier racing league in the United States with a similar series in Europe has mandated air conditioning in the cockpit of the race car during the 2009 season. Where in the world is the reporting about this and the production car usage?

What is the big deal? Did you know virtually all passenger car A/C systems shut off during full throttle acceleration? These race cars spend most of their time at full throttle! This is to address dangerous cockpit temperatures well over 100 degrees which can lead to serious driver errors and fatigue at well over 100 mph running hard for hours on end. These cars, with no insulation and finely tuned engines making in excess of 450hp minimum running high octane race fuel, run hot, really hot. Cool suits are utilized in many race series, but in this series where races run for hours, air conditioning was deemed necessary. A cool suit is a shirt with cooling passages that circulates water to cool the driver during the race. http://www.saferacer.com/auto-racing-underwear/cool-suit/?cat=56&tagarray=29

Most likely these are very efficient air conditioning systems that are powered by an electric motor, rather than a belt spinning the compressor in virtually all passenger cars. There are two exceptions I know of though. The new 2010 Toyota Prius and the Tesla. How is that for irony? Two milestone cars designed for efficiency using the same system extreme race cars use.

So what's the problem? First off, why in the world hasn't this been covered in the media yet? And secondly, why hasn't this been incorporated into production cars that really need it?

This system that has to be designed for efficiency. Ideally, develop the most efficient and reliable system you can in racing and it can filter down to the street car. Here is a system that is functional at full throttle, in an environment that could normally be at well over 100 degrees in an uninsulated environment (no rubber seals, no UV treated or tinted glass, etc), and when is going to show up in the larger engined, lower fuel-economy vehicles?

Obviously the Prius doesn't have this racing pedigree and development, but how ironic that the car that needs it the least has it first. It's time for the media to get on the ball, and the manufacturers to start making some announcements.

Photo: No air conditioning in Wayland Joe's IMSA Porsche 911 GT3 Cup Car

In NASCAR the oil is faster than the driver

All the hype surrounding the drivers in NASCAR should perhaps be re-directed at the R&D department and the oil chemists before the rules change. "Witches brew" oil formulations are giving unfair advantages to the big budget teams and further lowers the drivers' influence on the outcome of the race.

Two recent articles got me thinking about this recently. Robbie Gordon was interviewed by Pit Lane, the promotional magazine for Infineon Raceway at Sears Point. Or just Sears Point to all of us enthusiasts. He stated the driver makes up 10-15% of the racing in NASCAR. Pretty disappointing isn't it? Makes it sound like anyone can floor it and turn left. Never mind turn right, threshold braking, hitting the apex and, well you know, actually racing....

Then a recent article in the Wall Street Journal states that the motor oil is the most sophisticated part of the race car and $1million per year can be spent on R&D and experimentation by a team. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123932274269507173.html This is estimated to give a 10hp gain. Even if this number isn't low, during a three hour race, this really adds up, lap after lap.

Disclaimer: Yes, I would love to be a race car driver, even in NASCAR but ONLY at Sears Point and Watkins Glen where they truly race in the purest sense. Otherwise, keeping the busy schedule they have for the "type" of racing they do is admirable, I admit. It must be both exciting and a serious grind.

NASCAR is essentially a spec-racer series. The cars must all be essentially identical with variation strictly regulated. The engines make the main difference, as we know. So if costs are controlled, is it really fair for the big-budget teams to have such an advantage that further takes the driver out of the equation? NASCAR should mandate 3 oil formulations for the season per team, controlled by the oil companies. Lesser budget teams should be able to purchase these formulas for a nominal fee. To use it as an equalizer, teams down on points can acquire a new formulation using a rewards structure throughout the season. If this is too complex, then mandate no changing of oil chemistries for the season or only three times a season. Let's raise the driver equation.

There are teams that are subsidized, only running a few laps of a race for a nice monetary payout. While this isn't ideal, wouldn't it be better if they at least ran more competitively during the few laps they participate in? Wouldn't it be nice if they could actually afford to run the bulk of a race? Efforts should be made for team development. Oil regulation would be one small step.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of NASCAR as you can tell, but I give credit again to the drivers, the hardworking teams and the fact that it is the most popular motorsport in the US. I urge NASCAR to do the right thing and raise the influence the driver has on the outcome of the race.

A clever move for Volvo?

What is every car manufacturer doing these days? Promoting fuel economy, alternative fuel or energy source in current or upcoming models. How many are looking into expanding into a performance oriented market? Very few are doing so. However, Volvo seems to be doing just that.

A small manufacturer like Volvo, while innovative in certain areas such as safety, and under the cloud of sale by parent company Ford, http://www.businessinsider.com/ford-taking-steep-loss-as-it-trys-to-sell-volvo-2009-3 hasn't gotten the press of Honda, Toyota, Tesla and Chevrolet with the Volt. But what about a NEW market segment for them while they continue along with alternative fuels and powertrains like everyone else? Performance!

Despite a miserable showing by Volvo race cars in Speed GT a few years ago, why not partner with last year's championship winning K-Pax race team with no financial investment (technical data can be free), and see what they can do for the brand. If it fails again, no big deal right? It's a segment Volvo never had foothold in anyway. If it succeeds, great! No investment, it got the attention of the enthusiasts and opens the door for future programs and more sales.

There is no question the guys and girls with high powered sports cars in their garages, or sporty sedans and coupes in the driveway also own a Volvo, and granted an S60-R may be included in that. Of course, we think of them as a conservative product line with safe but boring cars and SUVs. But now, if Volvo succeeds, they capture some more sales that BMW, Audi, Acura and Mercedes may have had. And, the door is open for more performance oriented models.

So while I'm sticking to my prediction of a poor showing during the racing season, the risk to Volvo is minimal. Clever, very clever. But I still say the Speed Touring class would be an ideal choice vs. the faster GT class. Photo of a racing Volvo station wagon of the past courtesy of http://www.psfk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/volvo_850_btcc.jpg

Edit: The Volvos did quite well but Volvo still has virtually no performance credentials compared to the competition (Alfa, Audi, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes).

Does Nissan know something Porsche doesn't?

Nissan announced it will not move forward with the GT-R powered 4-door flagship model.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009/04/2009-new-york-auto-show-infiniti-news----gt-r-powered-flagship-is-dead.html while Porsche, Lamborghini and Aston Martin moved forward with theirs.

I find this interesting for several reasons. First, doesn't this reinforce the notion that the GT-R should have been marketed and sold as an Infiniti? After all, how many other $82,000 cars are there in Nissan dealerships? That was a mistake in my opinion. The level of service and atmosphere, in my experience of calling on over 200 dealerships of all makes, is incomparable.

Also, Porsche has moved forward with the Panamera sedan and it arrives shortly. Granted the timing doesn't seem great, but Porsche is the most profitable car company per model at a whopping $28,000 per car sold. http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C11441/ No wonder they have a controlling interest in Volkswagen, the 3rd largest car company in the world. So I think they know what they are doing, and it shows low volume sales can be profitable with a high price.

Nissan would have much of the R&D worked out already, having the GT-R platform to expand on, especially the powertrain. The GT-R couple is already a large platform, my guess is it could be shared. Very similar to the Challenger (also an overweight 2-door) and the Charger. It would obviously carry a $100,000 price tag, especially badged as an Infiniti. I think this is a missed opportunity. They benchmarked Porsche once, can't they do it again?

Notice how closely the Infiniti looks like the Panamera? Is Nissan conceding defeat to Porsche this time?

Lower those lifted trucks!

If your decapitator truck is all show and no-go off road, lower it back to legal levels. There should be a federal mandate of bumper height requirements for all trucks and SUVs. The safety hazard is absolutely unacceptable. They are dangerous, unnecessary and there needs to be a change.

Here is what I propose: Full-size pick-up trucks that are lifted must have limited-use only licenses. In other words, only to be driven to shows or recreational areas for off-road use only. Otherwise it is a ticketable offense with a verified correction and points on the license. Lifts can only be installed on trucks licensed as such. Small, light trucks may be lifted to a federally mandated level and have standard registrations. These small trucks include the Ford Ranger, Toyota Tacoma, etc. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right.

What about trucks used for work? Don't they need to sit up high? No, the height of trucks sold by the manufacturers is plenty sufficient. I challenge you to find any corporate fleet owned trucks on construction or off-road sites across the country that have been lifted higher than stock out of the job requirement. Even then that can be a special application with associated insurance ramifications.

Besides the fact they are wasting even more gas sitting up in the air so high, the bumpers and mass sit so high that they are major safety hazards to every other passenger vehicle on the road. Whether front, rear or the sides, the fatality rates skyrocket. The roll-over risk increases significantly as well.

I don't trust the safe driving factor of lifted trucks, or the driving public in general like many of us, so that was one reason I purposely waited on the model car I ordered to have side-impact air bags. vs. one that was available sooner without. A small step, but I felt a smart one.

What sets the trucks apart that are actually used off road for 4-wheeling vs. these street-queen compensators? They tend to be lighter, more compact models that are suitable for climbing over obstacles and fitting between tight spaces. The attached photo is a perfect example and it even has rear mudflaps. My nephews Mike and Jesse often go off road in their trucks, that is one of them. Is this one too high? To be honest I don't know, but you get the idea.

You don't like what I'm saying because you're a safe driver and you sit 5 feet above the rest of us and have no problem with that. Tell you what, when you have to take emergency maneuvers in your 5,000lb behemoth, I sure don't want to be near you where you might roll onto me, nor get rear ended because your braking distance increased 20ft-30ft or more from 70mph.

Suppose someone pulls out in front of your or runs a red light? Although they made a stupid decision, they don't deserve to die for it.

What about those huge, massively heavy semi tractor-trailers? Let me share a story with you. I witnessed a large dump-truck go through an intersection on a yellow light. Unfortunately a 70's era Oldsmobile Cutlass decided to turn in front of it. The dump truck broadsided it so hard it completely stopped the direction of travel of the Cutlass and proceeded to push it down the street, blowing out tires and breaking axles. When it finally stopped, the entire side of the car between the wheels was crushed inward. But five teenagers climbed out of that car with no or few minor injuries (bruises). If that dump truck was a lifted full-size pickup or SUV, there would have been multiple fatalities because it would have cleared the frame and door structures and entered into the passenger compartment easily. The dump-truck hit the body mass of the Cutlass, rather than the weaker support structures of the roof.

Quite frankly, you are a hazard and I urge police to keep their measuring sticks handy and the federal government to mandate a standard for all states. This won't ruin your fun, but it will stop your posing which puts you, and the rest of us, at risk.

Corvettes and gold chains are no more!

Remember the stereotype of the Corvette owner? Mid-life crisis, hairy chest, gold chains; a Disco-Danny or a "wild 'n' crazy guy"! People STILL believe this is the stereotype. The Corvette broke this mold over a decade ago. It is now one of the world's premier sports cars, the best performance value for the money. Many people don't know this . You know who - the guy or girl who has never opened the hood of his car(s). Even for the last 30 years. My dear brother is one of "them". He doesn't have the "gene". A recent discussion made me realize this.

This started undoubtedly in the mid-70's when virtually every car was unremarkable. And quite honestly, so was the Corvette. An generally unreliable car from a company not known for reliability anyway. It's performance was pitiful compared to the heyday during the late 60s.

Anemic performance was a staple then with virtually all cars. But the 'Vette which has always looked fast now wasn't. Fiberglass body panels were clever for weight reduction and resistant to door dings, but difficult for paint to wear well due to flex and surface prep at the time, so I'm told.

The 50s and 60s were good years for the Corvette, but like most cars, the 70's ruined its image. In 1984, the start of the 4th generation Corvette (C4), saw a new styling edge. Before '91, it made at most a dismal 250hp. How much does your 6 cylinder family sedan make today? Exactly. The Disco-Danny's didn't care, and probably didn't know better. Believe me, I still see middle-age men driving new models in the right lane at or under the speed limit. I'm sure many have never seen full-throttle acceleration. But they made a great buying decision.

Some exceptions worth mentioning are the 1990-1995 ZR-1 Corvette. A 400hp model that was quite expensive vs. the standard model and wasn't sold in large numbers. But the interior was still rather lousy. The 1991 model year saw a nice jump to 300hp with a motor called the "LT1". While better, it really needed more.

When the 5th generation model appeared in 1997, everything changed. A lighter, stiffer hydroformed frame, a rear-mounted transaxle (transmission) for optimal weight distribution, a better interior and an excellent "LSX" family motor that in '02 was available in the Z-06 model making 405hp. The Corvette was now a world-class sports car and the best bang-for-the-buck.

Today the Corvette and especially the Z-06 remains the best value in the world among sports cars by tens of thousands of dollars with phenomenal performance. Even the 2009 base Coupe with an MSRP of $49,415 is near the top in performance.

So what about those gold chains? They are now gold medals.