What kind of minivan driver are you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that you would know it by the number of crossovers automakers continue to make, but 2011 is shaping up as a banner year for minivans.

"Minivans?", you may ask. "They still make those things?"

Yes they do. Not as many as before. Minivans now make up about 6 per cent of the new car market; half that of 2005. And while former big players in this segment—General Motors and Ford—abandoned the market years ago, almost all the remaining minivan makers are still optimistic about the segment. In fact, all have either launched all-new or thoroughly refreshed models for 2011.

I recently had a chance to drive two of the latest minivans, 2011 models of the Nissan Quest and the Honda Odyssey back to back. And the contrasting approaches the two automakers took begs the question: What kind of minivan driver are you?

Like before, Honda markets its Odyssey as a ‘van for drivers. It’s steering gives more feedback, its ride is firmer than the new Nissan, and with a lower centre of gravity, it felt more planted when pushed hard on twisty roads.

But with a smooth-yet-controlled ride, and a quieter cabin at speed, the Quest does a better impression of a luxury car than the Odyssey.

If not as athletic as the more aggressive Honda, the Nissan offers a more refined ride. And its cabin bests the Honda for fit, finish, and use of hgiher quality materials. It’s a more upscale cabin overall with a stress-free driving demeanour.

The Honda offers seating for eight—one more than the 2+3+2 seating arrangement in the Nissan. But the Odyssey’s middle third row seat is tiny and uncomfortable. While the simplicity of raising and lowering the Quest’s seats (they all fall forward, and are powered on the top line LE) is brilliantly stress free, without the fussy straps and latches you need to deal with in the Honda.

In short: The Quest is the better “minivan for minivan owners”. But the Odyssey is the better “minivan for drivers”.

So what kind of minivan driver are you?

Ferrari’s new FF forsakes form for function

 

 

 

 

Ferraris are about as relevant in Canada as an Arctic Football Lingerie League. Of the over 1.5 million new cars and trucks sold in Canada last year, less than 100 were built in the fabled factories in Maranello, Italy.

However, despite its boutique sales numbers, as a styling trendsetter, Ferraris have always packed a big punch. Cars like the 1960s GTO and Dino, ‘70s 308, et al, have influenced countless other copycat designs with their delicate balance of beauty versus beast.

But with the first images and technical details of the much-anticipated successor to its 612 Scaglietti, the new FF above, Ferrari seems to be the automaker that’s lacking a wee bit of imagination.

For starters: the name FF. It refers to the new Ferrari 2+2 grand tourer’s all-wheel drive system, a first for a Ferrari. Now before you go off the deep end about the blasphemous nature of a car wearing a prancing horse badge that’s not strictly powered by its rear wheels only, also know that the model name was originally used by the 1966 to 1971 Jensen FF 2+2 grand tourer, the first non-off-road production car to offer traction all four wheels.

But the new Ferrari’s lack of imagination doesn’t just stop with its name.

Take a good look at the FF’s profile. To me, it’s a blend of first generation E36/8 BMW M Coupe and what a much-rumoured Porsche Panamera coupe may look like—not exactly a pair of beauty pageant queens to take inspiration from, eh?

So, in lieu of creating a work of art, the new FF is a new Ferrari that’s easier to drive for the less skilled, and has more room for its rear passengers and their cargo. Just like its less-than-a-looker recent California.

Is this a trend to be concerned about?

 

Despite the awards, Chevy’s Volt hasn’t won anything yet

Without much effort, General Motors media materials will tell you that its new Chevrolet Volt gasoline-electric plug-in-hybrid is a “winner”. In fact, at this year’s Detroit auto show, the Volt was named 2011 North American Car of the Year, and before that, various American pubs (Automobile Magazine’s 2011 Automobile of the Year; Car and Driver’s 10Best; Green Car Journal’s 2011 Green Car of the Year, Motor Trend’s 2011 Car of the Year; Popular Mechanics’ 2010 Breakthrough Technology award: and Ward’s 10 Best Engines award for its unique power train system won) have also lathered on the accolades and kudos.

But does the Volt deserve all of this editorial love?

I recently had a chance for a brief drive in a 2011 U.S.-spec Volt, ahead of the 2012 Canadian version coming this summer. Based on this limited drive, the Volt comes across as a solid product. There are no obvious flaws in its driving demeanour, or basic functions as a transportation device. But there are several reasons why the Volt would never garner my vote for any “best of” award.

The Volt must have one of the highest awards-to-sales ratios in history. Chevy only sold only 326 Volts since its U.S. launch in December, with the goal of selling 10,000 to 15,000 in all of 2011. Hyundai sold almost 200,000 of its new Sonatas last year. So just  as I would never give an exotic (like the limited-edition, technological tour de force Lexus LF-A) my vote for its lack of market significance, neither should the Volt be awarded for such.  

The other shoe that hasn’t dropped on the Volt is its performance without the aid of its battery. When I get a chance to drive the Volt for a week, and experience how lively it is (or not?) when the batteries have been depleted, or how much gas it sips, I’ll let you know.

The other big issues with the Volt—and every other new electric vehicle coming our way, like Nissan's Leaf—were brought up by an astute Wheels reader: mainly the issues of is its variable recharging costs, unknown cold weather battery performance, and dubious recycling of its battery when its done.

In isolation, based purely as a “product”, GM’s done an exemplary job with the Volt. Its range-extender power train just may end up as the best solution in the future, compared to purely-gas, purely electric, or current hybrid technologies. In that regard, it really is a “winner”

But until the many questions the Volt still asks are answered—and its significance in the market truly justified—it hasn’t won anything yet in my books.

 

 

Why the most important auto show this year won’t happen in Detroit or Frankfurt

The highlights on my annual business calendar are the “big” car shows. Call me a geek. But for me at least, there's nothing more exciting than to dive into these auto orgies, whether its Detroit in the winter, Geneva, New York, or China in the spring or, Paris, Tokyo, Frankfurt or Los Angles in the fall. But there’s one show I’ve never attended. And by the looks of its growing importance and affect on new car buyers, I’ll need to pencil in the first week of next January, and book a flight to Las Vegas, for the annual Consumer Electronics Show.

In my weekly Autonews column in the Star last Saturday, I briefly highlighted this year’s CES affair. It not only attracted a huge number of exhibitors and attendees, the the types of announcements being made at the Vegas show are becoming more and more important to new car buyers. It’s been a slow build, but software, not hardware, is where the action is in new cars these days.

Over the past couple of years, the proportion of time manufacturers' pound us media over the head about USB this, or hands-fee that, is overshadowing the nuts and bolts of new cars. You may buy your car based on its fuel economy, performance, handling, or the badge on its grille. But a growing number of buyers aren’t. They’re more concerned if they can plug in their iPod, get the Chris Moyles show on BBC Radio 1 satellite radio, or check their email, all while driving.

And some automakers, more than others, are all over this paradigm shift in the new car buyer decision making process.

In his keynote speech delivered at the opening of this year's CES, Rupert Stadler, Chairman of the Board of Management of Germany's Audi AG (seen above with Gary Shapiro, President and CEO of CES), outlined his vision for future developments by the brand. One was the debut of Audi's  next-gen MMI Touch interface directly into a scroll wheel. The circuit board uses NVIDIA's Tegra chipset: the same processor powering a range of tablets and netbooks.

At the recent 2011 Ford Explorer launch event, Ford folks spent the majority of our time talking about the new crossover's software infotainment features, not the hardware of what is essentially a redesigned 2005 Freestyle.

But it’s just not the automakers that are pushing infotainment. Its new car buyers that making purchasing decisions based on not what’s under the hood, but what’s behind the dash.

The new 2011 Volkswagen Jetta is a good example. VW kept the decrepit 2.0-litre 115 hp gas four available in the Jetta as a price leader. But customers would rather spend their money upgrading to the Jetta’s optional infotainment system. Becasue of this demand, my local VW dealer can’t keep enough of the hoary 2.0-litre models in stock.

So while some may ask if one auto show is more relevant than another, perhaps the bigger question is: Are traditional auto shows still relevant at all?

The Crank is in Detroit!!

Check out Wheels.ca's live blog during 2010 Detroit auto show's media day here.

Is Saab Chairman’s optimism surreal or substantiated?

As the cofounder of the perennially money-losing Dutch supercar operation Spyker, Saab Chairman Victor Muller fundamentally has to be an optimistic guy. Yet as he makes the rounds in the next few weeks drumming up customer interest in the new 9-4X crossover, left, and evaluating investor intentions to see whether or not Saab will enter the Swedish stock market in May, you have wonder where the hope in resuscitating the moribund General Motors orphan brand is coming from.

Right off the bat, Muller wants Saab to sell 80,000 cars globally in 2011 and 120,000 units in 2012 when he also targets a profit. Problem is, Saab only sold 31,696 vehicles last year —two (!) in Canada. (To put that in perspective, Toyota sold more Corollas in Canada than Saab did worldwide.)

Secondly, the products that Muller is counting on to almost quadruple Saab’s sales —the existing 9-5 luxury sedan, said 9-4X crossover—are the same types of cars that no one wanted when Saab was under GM's watch: restyled, mainstream GM engineering, priced like luxury German brands.

Thirdly, its not like customers have been banging down the doors looking for Saabs. Even with virtually no inventory at its U.S. dealers, Wards Auto reported that Saab-Spyker ended last November with 269 days of supply, the largest inventory in the business

Saab will replace the ageing 9-3 in 2012 and is also holding “technology-sharing talks” with three vehicle makers to build a new version of its classic 92 compact car of the 1950s. But can the company survive until then? Is Muller’s optimism for naught?

What’s missing in my books is simple: beyond talks of moving the brand upmarket, Muller hasn’t stated yet what the “new” Saab brand means. For the past 20 years under GM’s watch, a steady decline in Saab sales proves it can’t continue with its current German-challenging positioning. Muller says the new 9-4X—a Mexican-made Cadillac SRX-clone—will compete with Audi's Q5 and Q7 and BMW's X3 and X5. But past experiences suggest that customers simply won’t pay German prices for Saab’s Swedish offerings.

Even Volvo has recently decided that chasing the Germans is a waste of time.

So why does Muller have any hope that Saab will not only survive, but also prosper?

Do you think that the brand needs a wholesale shift in its product and branding strategy?

Or is continuing on with the current Saab values enough to revive it back to life?

[Sources: Automotive News, Bloomberg, DesRosiers & Associates, Wards Auto]

Have oxymoronic “performance” SUVs” finally had their day?

I’ve always been at odds with the idea that a vehicle designed primarily for off-roading and hauling around a lot of stuff should also act like a performance car. One of those "never the twain shall meet" sort of things. But with recent news from both Mercedes-Benz and Cadillac, it looks like the days of “performance SUVs” are soon to end.

First up, Cadillac has stopped offering its SRX, top left, with the 300 hp 2.8-litre V6 turbo engine upgrade. Blaming poor sales (Cadillac says, the turbo version made up a mere 5 to 10 per cent of SRX model sales since its debut in December 2009), it seems utility vehicle owners are quite happy with the less powerful (265 hp) and marginally more miserly naturally-aspirated 3.0L V6.

If you're a fan of engineering refinement, this is a shame. The 3.0 SRX is a d-a-w-g. Keep in mind: If or when Saab ever sells its 9-4X SRX-clone in Canada, it will come with the same GM turbo mill.

Over at Mercedes, apparently the automaker has decided to stop making its high-performance ML 63 AMG, top right, that uses the outgoing 6.3-litre V8 with 503 hp. Along with various diesels, this will leave the 388 hp ML 550—and its absolute zero pretensions of performance—as the most powerful ML you could buy.

Despite these two most recent obituaries, the “performance SUV” genre isn’t completely dead. Yet.

BMW has its ridiculous X5 M, boasting 555 hp from its twin-turbocharged V8. And Jeep is working on a replacement for its Grand Cherokee SRT8, this time with a version of the have 6.4L V8 rated at 475 hp found in the new-for-2011 Dodge Charger. And what I consider the best in a questionable class, the 500 hp Porsche Cayenne Turbo, is still out there for the mainly pro hockey player wives I see piloting these oxymoronic beasts around.

Still, are you sad to see these “performance SUVs” die off?

Or is it “Good riddance!!!” to a mutant type of car that should never has seen the light of day in the first place?

[Sources: Automotive News, Auto Evolution]