John Cox remembered

Our little obit on Toronto car dealer John Cox a couple of weeks ago in the print edition generated some warm memories from various people within the industry.

It seems John was a great guy to work for.

Either that or those who don't think so are holding their peace!

One particularly interesting story came from a then-young telephone systems salesman who had been assigned "car dealerships" as his territory.

He cold-called Cox, who invited him into his office, offered coffee, chit-chatted for a while.

Then Cox excused himself, saying he needed to attend to something, and would be right back.

Minutes turned into tens of minutes, which turned into half a hour.

The newbie sales rep eventually went back to the receptionist and mentioned that he was awaiting Mr. Cox's return.

"Oh, he's left for the day!" came the cheery reply.

Seriously miffed, the sales rep left.

Still, this was his territory, so he went back the next day.

"Oh, come on back in," beamed Cox.

The rep was about to go into his spiel, but began by asking if Cox had forgotten about him the day before.

"No no," said Cox. "I do this with all new sales people. If they're good, they'll come back. You came back. No need to go into the pitch; I'll take whatever you're selling."

So the salesman made his sale, learned a great lesson, and eventually ended up selling - cars!

Like I said, we'll not see the likes of John Cox again.

His son Brad also coughed up this photo (below) which (I think, based on the odd lighting) was taken in the reflection of the privacy glass in a stretched Rolls-Royce Limousine that Cox had taken three auto journalists out in for a wee picnic lunch. (Yes, that IS in fact a dead squirrel on my upper lip...).

Among the memorable moments of that drive was when we were heading back downtown on the Don Valley Parkway after lunch. As you can see, we were all quite Natalie Attired (as the old radio joke used to go), and generally behaving ourselves quite well.

By our standards anyway.

(That is in fact Perrier. At least, in my glass.)

A quite attractive blond woman passed us in her white Toyota Supra. (Yes, all these years later I remember details like that. Can't remember what I had for breakfast, but...).

As she passed, she gave us the John McEnroe one half of the victory sign salute.

Never did figure out what that was all about.

Maybe she preferred Bentleys.

Toyota Highlander - Gone in 60 Seconds (or less)

The prize for Having a Firm Grasp on the Blindingly Obvious goes to the radio newscasters yesterday - I heard a couple of them - who were reporting on the theft of six more-or-less identical Toyota Highlanders, all from my old Leaside neighbourhood, within about a one and a half hour span:

"It may have involved organized crime."

Gee, d'ya think?

OK, maybe the newscasters were just quoting the 'authorities'.

In any event, we should consider alternative possibilities.

Maybe it was just a coincidence?

Maybe the thieves, organized or not, just have a fleet of really quick tow trucks?

A better bet is that the bad guys have some sort of computer program which scans through all possible combinations of codes for the supposedly unbreakable electronic locking and immobilizer system, which all of these vehicles have. When it hits the right code, CLICK!, and your car is into a container and on its way to Russia or Nigeria or someplace, probably before you even notice it's gone.

And the Whistling Past the Graveyard prize goes to poor Sandy de Felice, a spokesperson for Toyota who I know quite well. She said in a prepared statement that "Toyota is confident in the integrity of our vehicle security system. We have a robust system, the integrity of which has never been compromised."

I guess she would have to say that.

I might add to that prepared statement, "...so far."

Or, "...as far as we know."

But if I still lived anywhere in The Big Smoke (not just Leaside) and owned a Toyota Highlander (or any car with an electronic locking system) I'd stick it in a garage with a good old-fashioned steel padlock.

The other unanswered question is: Who is the dynamite Toyota sales person who has clearly made the Highlander the official car of Leaside?

Nissan Cube revisited

There are two rules which make up the secret to a happy ship/marriage/newspaper.

They are:

Rule Number One: The captain/wife/editor is always right.

Rule Number Two: In all other cases, refer to Rule Number One.

So at the risk of sinking the ship/divorce/rumblings in the newsroom, I'm breaking both rules:

The Nissan Cube isn't that bad.

Our editor trashed it fairly comprehensively a couple of weeks ago. His kids liked it; that was about as close to praise as he could get.

I was a bit surprised at his level of vehemence.

First, he's normally a fairly calm guy.

Second, I had driven the car at the press preview in Miami a couple of months ago and rather enjoyed it.

True, it did score tied for sixth (out of seven - i.e. last) in its class at the recent AJAC Car of the Year Test Fest. The performance testing experts rated it down on braking distance, where a metre or two can cost significant points. Our fellow journalists liked the spacious interior but were not seemingly enamoured of the exterior styling.

Ironic perhaps then that the panel of styling specialists put it on the short list for the Best New Design award.

So I arranged for another test drive back home. Once again, I found it very pleasant.

Great visibility, decent driving position once you get used to the windshield being so far away and so vertical, good comfort, and huge room inside. The chap who organizes the printing of my annual car calendar is a big, burly ex-cop (and admittedly a multi-time Nissan owner) and he said he could have worn a cowboy hat inside this thing.

While the Cube is definitely cubic outside, inside about all you see is curves and ovals. The ripple effect of the ceiling is also pretty cool.

Mechanically, Cube is pretty much Versa, and I find both cars fine to drive. The quirks of the Continuously-Variable Transmission take some getting used to, but given that it delivers better performance on less fuel, what's not to like? In these tough economic times, seems to me you can make some adjustments in the name of better efficiency.

Lady Leadfoot even said she found it fun to drive, and particularly liked the way the rear window wraps around asymmetrically onto the right side glass.

So, an economy car that is functional, efficient, well-equipped and definitely not boring?

Bring it on.

You can't even get it in beige, although even I would caution against ordering the shag carpet dash cover...

Winter tires? It's about time.

This beautiful sunny weather we've enjoyed this past couple of weeks - where was it last summer when we could have really used it?

But check your Kenzie Car Calendar in support of SmartRisk (click on www.jimkenzie.com to re-order - once again, I can't seem to make hot links work in this blogging software...) - it really is mid-November.

While the temperature feels pretty nice, especially when the sun shines, thermometer usually reads in single-digits these days. And whenever it drops below seven degrees C., your summer tires, or even "all-seasons" (which I call "no-seasons" because they're not much good any time) become even less effective.

That's because modern winter tires really are not just 'snow' tires any more. Their tread compounds are softer, more pliable, and don't get rigid when the temperature drops.

The rubber can therefore conform to irregularities in the road surface, which is a big part of how tires get traction.

Of course, their tread pattern means they get better traction in snow, in slush and on ice. But they're better in winter on all road surfaces.

You also really should put four winter tires on your car. I have heard of some tire retailers still telling consumers that this advice is mere propaganda from tire manufacturers to move product, that you really only need two, and to put them on the driving wheels.

Wrong on both counts.

I participated in a tire test late last winter, conducted by Continental Tire. One of the most illuminating exercises involved three mechanically-identical Mustang GTs - rear-wheel drive V8-powered sport coupes.

Car One had four of Conti's newest winter tires. Car Two had a set of four Conti all-seasons. Car Three had all-seasons on the front, winter tires on the rears - what a lot of people still do, and which, as noted, some tire professionals are still recommending.

The test, run on packed snow at below-zero temperatures, consisted of acceleration from rest, into a fairly high-speed slalom course, with a 'keyhole' - a big circle - at the end.

Predictably and as expected, Car One was the best. It accelerated strongly, and steered fine through the slalom and keyhole.

Car Two, the all-season car, was in a way the safest - you can't get into too much trouble if you can't move. Without a shove from one of the instructors, this car could barely get off the line.

But once it got rolling, it was at least balanced. Having similar levels of grip at both ends, it could be steered safely through the twisty bits - albeit slowly, or off-course it would go.

Car Three? All-seasons up front, winters on the back? It was all but undriveable.

It got away from rest fine, thanks to the grip of the winters on the rear wheels.

But when it came time to turn - nothing. It understeered - plowed straight ahead - like the Queen Mary. Very dangerous.

If for whatever reasons you can only put on two winter tires - really, NOT recommended - they should not necessarily go on the driving wheels. They should go on the rear wheels, regardless of which pair are the drivers.

Why?

The issue isn't acceleration - it's stability, in cornering or under braking. You don't want the back end of the car swinging around and leading the way, so the tires with the best traction - the winters - should always go on the back.

Yes, it looks weird to see winter tires only on the rear wheels of a front-wheel drive car. The first time I saw this was when I was a kid, on a DKW van, a then-competitor for the VW Microvan. If I was blogging then, I probably would have ripped into the doofus with his "snow tires" on the wrong axle.

But hey - we can all learn.

And virtually every tire expert (except for that handful of ignorant sales people) is on board with this idea.

But really - four is the only way to go. Give up one latte per week, or one professional nails job a month. The extra two winter tires could save you a lot more than those luxuries would cost.

Put them on a set of steel wheel rims, so you only have to replace the wheel/tire as a unit, instead of subjecting both rim and tire to the wear and tear of mounting and re-mounting at each seasonal change.

Also, your car probably came with alloy rims; the salt and sand, not to mention increased likelihood of curb contact, means winter can really play havoc with those expensive bits of shiny metal. Let the cheap steel rims be sacrificial lambs.

True, apartment-dwellers might have a challenge finding a place to store the off-season wheels and tires. Some tire retailers offer this service.

Or, get on good terms with a friend who lives in a house with a really big garage.

Is the City of Toronto anti-car? Say it isn't so.

Because the City of Toronto keeps doing things like assigning scarce road resources to the half-dozen bicycles which will soon be plying our streets come January and taking those resources away from the twelve million cars that really need them, you might think that The Big Smoke is somehow anti-car.

Now, for once the City of Toronto IS trying to do something good for car owners, but it may not be getting the credit it deserves.

I'm talking about the proposal to change the anti-idling bylaw from a three-minute limit to a one-minute limit. It was proposed by the Toronto Board of Health to City Council recently; last time I looked it was bogged down somewhere (governmental progress can be glacial).

Some think this looks like another car-baiting cash grab.

It's not.

Well, it may be.

But it isn't ONLY that.

Why is this a Good Thing?

Because idling your car is just about the stupidest thing you can do to it.

It doesn't take a quadruple-digit IQ to understand that idling isn't the way to better fuel consumption. Obviously, it nets you zero miles per gallon, or uses infinite litres per 100 kilometres.

A study conducted in Europe some years back showed that you can switch an engine off and back on again 30 times a minute - i.e. about as quickly as it is possible to do so - and still use less fuel than leaving it idle for that minute. That study was of large truck Diesel engines ('fuel' for thought for truck owners everywhere) but I bet it can't be far wrong for any engine.

OK, so I am preternaturally cheap. But do you have that sort of money to throw away on gasoline? Even at a buck a litre - cheap by world standards - I sure as heck don't.

One of the main fuel economy advantages of hybrid cars is that they automatically shut their engines off when at rest. So-called 'idle-stop' systems are available on many models in Europe, which make some of them nearly as efficient overall as hybrids, and a lot less expensive.

Ironically, the only non-hybrid idle-stop system I can think of currently available in Canada is on that paragon of fuel efficiency, the Porsche Panamera.

Idling can hit you in the wallet other ways too. Especially when an engine is cold, it's the worst possible thing you can do to it, because unburnt fuel in the rich cold-start mixture can wash away the protective oil coating on cylinder walls, leading to premature engine wear.

Again, who's got the extra cash to rebuild an engine before its time?

If you have any concern whatsoever for the environment, idling is clearly stupid. We have to accept a minor (VERY minor) contribution to atmospheric pollution if we're driving (but probably less than those methane-generating cyclists, all half-dozen of them...).

But when just sitting there going nowhere?

That's just stupid.

So: Waiting for a friend outside her office? Flick on the four-ways and shut it down.

Stuck at a level crossing waiting for the GO Train or a slow freight? Flick on the four-ways and shut it down.

Heading for the drive-thru at Timmy's? First, improve your standards w/r/t your morning beverage (the word "coffee" does not compute with Timmy's) then park your car and walk in to the bleedin' store. The server might even be cute.

Just don't idle the car.

Don't be stupid.

Let your City help you be smarter.

Now, the current three-minute limit is not enforced very vigorously; the cops aren't likely to be any more diligent with the one-minute limit. Maybe they should stop their illegal flagging down of high-beam-flashing radar-trap-warners and do something productive and useful.

Television and driving safety

I'm a bit of a CSI (pick the city) freak. Love the colourful shots of the cities and The Who background music, and the science-based approach to crime-solving appeals to my engineery side.

Also appealing is the fact that all CSI investigators seem to be gorgeous babes. You don't suppose that's only on TV, do you?

But I watched an episode today (which I think is this season; when you PVR everything, who knows for sure?) and you gotta wonder who the heck the writers/directors/producers are, and what they're thinking.

The episode revolves around a fatal crash in Miami, in which a Cadillac Escalade rams into the back end of an old Bentley, the Slade rolls several times, and two people die - the "alleged" driver of the Cadillac at the scene, and (later, due to some post-event brain-scrambling condition) the driver of the Bentley.

In the course of the investigation, the team carefully reconstructs the Caddy roll-over via computer simulation to try and determine where the bodies were before and during the crash, because they have some doubts as to who was actually behind the wheel at the time.

I don't know how accurate or realistic such technology is. But the investigators note that at least one occupant, the 'son' in the back seat, flailed all over the place. He survived.

At NO point does any of them make any mention of the fact that nobody appears to have been wearing a seat belt!

I mean, they are cops, trained to look for answers. Do seat belts not even cross their minds?

The team eventually determines that the 14-year old 'daughter' was actually driving (why was THAT allowed to be shown?) In a flashback during the closing credits they show her actually WEARING a belt. Mom is being very solicitous, making sure daughter doesn't speed - and is NOT wearing a belt! Fine example she's setting.

Yet one of the main plot points - the fact that the daughter, not the Mom, was driving - was brought into question because the daughter had been found well outside the vehicle, having been thrown clear. And she survived!

Obviously, two things are wrong here:

- If she HAD been belted, as the closing flashback clearly shows, she would not have been thrown clear;

- if she had been thrown clear, she almost certainly would not have survived a multiple roll-over.

Such is the lack of up-front thinking on the part of so-called creative people about the most important safety device ever invented - probably in ANY sphere of human activity, never mind just traffic safety.

OK, so it's only television. But the fact that Americans kill themselves way disproportionally to Canadians on the highways, and the difference can be 100 percent blamed on their lack of belt wearing, you'd think popular culture would at least TRY to show a better example.

Almost needless to say, ALL the CSI characters do NOT wear belts as they careen through the streets of Las Vegas/Miami/New York in their Hummers and/or Tahoes.

The safety people in the US are currently claiming about 83 percent belt wearing rate nation-wide, but I'm sure it's much lower than that. (Canada is about 95 percent nation-wide). Other reports have the US number as low as 70 percent, which is supported by the disproportionate number of traffic deaths down there. We do about 2700 annually; based on the population ratio of about ten to one, they should do about 27,000, but it's well over 40,000, and the only substantive difference in our traffic pattern is belt use.

All US states now except New Hampshire have belt-wearing laws. But about 18 of those at last count still only have them as so-called 'secondary' offenses - a cop can't pull someone over JUST for not wearing a belt; if they nab someone for something - anything - else they can add 'no belt' to the citation.

Which is the epitome of dumb. If the objective is traffic safety (and let's assume for the sake of argument that it is), then about the ONLY two things that matter are impaired driving and belt use.

And of course, chances are if you do get involved in a car crash down there you'll be bankrupted by their medical system.

Aren't we all glad we live in Canada?

Canadian Car/Truck of the Year Test Fest Tidbit, # 3 of a series

One of the sideline awards we hand out for the AJAC Car/Truck (oops - "Car/Utility Vehicle") of the Year program is "Best New Design".

Not really a 'Miss Congeniality' prize, but one intended to reward car makers who can deliver vehicles with more-than-minimally-necessary aesthetic attributes.

It isn't only a beauty contest. It is supposed to represent design in all its aspects, including functionality and 'brand essence'.

According to the scoring criteria, the aesthetics score reflects the sheer beauty of the design. The function score assesses the manner and degree to which it accommodates the practical requirements of the vehicle type. And brand essence considers its success in conveying the image, heritage, and values of the specific brand.

In the old days, every car or truck was eligible for this award. Jurors would simply vote for the vehicles they felt looked the best.

Very democratic, very grass-roots.

Problem - there was so much divergence of opinion that we'd end up with forty-five cars tied for first place with one vote each.

Or near enough.

So the Organizing Group decided to create a short list, utilizing the knowledge and tastes of a small set of automotive design experts - decidedly not members of the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada - to whittle down the roster to what they perceived to be the best candidates, and allow the rest of us to vote on those.

The experts are Robert Cumberford, a design columnist with the Ann Arbor Michigan-based Automobile Magazine who now lives in France; Paul Deutschman, a freelance car designer based in Montreal (the Callaway Corvettes are perhaps his best-known designs); Ken Cummings and Bruce Thomson, both of the latter being automotive design professors at Humber College.

This year's Best New Design candidates were the Audi A5 Cabriolet, BMW 335d sedan, Ford Taurus, Mazda3 and Nissan Cube.

Hello? What happened to the GOOD-looking cars?

OK, the award is not based strictly on aesthetics. But those criteria DO mention "Sheer beauty".

I see some "sheer" in here, but not a whole lot of beauty.

Where's the Cadillac CTS Wagon (right), clearly in my view (ahem...) the handsomest car out there? Seems to me it meets the other criteria pretty well too.

Where's the Jaguar XF-R (left)? Gorgeous, good room for its class, and definitely hitting the mark with respect to brand essence.

Or the Buick LaCrosse?

Or the Mercedes-Benz E-Class coupe?

Not on the list.

And how about the Audi R8 5.2, whose V8-powered clone won this award (and just about everything else) two years ago? Did stuffing two more cylinders under its comely rear deck simultaneously beat it with the ugly stick?

It's showroom-mate, the A5 Cabrio (left), did make the list, and it's pretty enough. But is it functionally or brand-essence-wise anything special?

The BMW 3 Series (right) is a good-enough looking car, and brand essence is something BMW pulls off better perhaps than any other car maker.

But (a) the 3 has never been a winner from a space utilization perspective, surely a strong factor in assessing the functionality of a sedan; (b) it is hardly a design ground breaker, and (c) it is hardly new - this generation was introduced in 2005 as a 2006 model year car; the car entered in this year's Test Fest was 'new' largely by virtue of its Diesel power train (which, of course, gave it its Category victory).

The Mazda3 (right) is a great little car, and I guess by virtue of it winning two of the classes it was entered in deserves recognition. But the gaping maw of a grille is a bit jaw-dropping, although Mazda Canada claims its customers love the way it looks.

The Nissan Cube (left)? Well, if you read our editor's comments on that car a couple of weeks ago you'll know that its aesthetic merit is, at best, highly controversial. Maybe that's the role of a design Short List committee, to force us design-challenged clods to consider something New, Different, Daring and Radical.

Maybe.

From a functional perspective, what's so 'Best New Design' about a box on wheels? Then again, this same panel put the Honda Fit on last year's short list and we were collectively, um, design-challenged enough to vote it in.

The Ford Taurus (left)? It's a good-looking car, I won't dispute that, and does a decent job of delivering on a sedan's practicality.

But does Ford even HAVE a brand essence?

Given that we could only vote for cars on the Short List, I think I gave Taurus my first place vote.

(I say "I think" because I didn't write down what I voted for, and once the votes are entered into the computer system they're blocked for even us to see.)

But Taurus ain't no Cadillac CTS Wagon.

I guess beauty as well as functionality and brand essence are all in the eye of the beholder.

Ontario's cell phone law - unintended consequences?

We won't know for some time - maybe ever - if Ontario's hand-held cell phone ban will have any impact on traffic safety.

Regular readers know what side of that fence I'm not sitting on, to mangle a metaphor.

Have you noticed fewer people talking on their phones since the ban went into effect?

I haven't.

OK, I'm the one always saying you shouldn't use anecdotal evidence to support arguments. And as long as the police are issuing warnings instead of real fines and/or demerit points, there aren't really any consequences of breaking the law yet.

But we're already hearing suggestions that some people are trying harder to disguise the fact that they are still using their phones - for example, sticking the unit between ear and shoulder and driving all hunched up and tense, hardly conducive to safe motoring.

Could this ban make driving LESS safe?

I my own self have been trying to utilize the hands-free kit that came with my (relatively new) Samsung cell phone, with the pair of earbud earphones and the dangling microphone which makes me look like I live under a bridge and am communicating with aliens.

(My phone apparently is Bluetooth-enabled, but who has time to figure out how that works? In a different car every week?)

So, whose ears are these earbud earphones designed for? Certainly not mine. The left bud barely fits in, and the right one just sits there hanging from the lower 'curl' of my ear. If I turn my head a fraction either way, they both fall out and I have to fumble to put them back in.

Certainly that's less safe than holding on to the phone itself.

Now, driving with earbud headphones is hardly conducive to safety either, and may even be banned depending on jurisdiction and interpretation of the law. So when I DO use my hands-free kit, I only have one ear 'budded'.

A couple of years ago I received a photo of a prototype device that probably should qualify as hands-free:

For instructions on how to make your own, check out this YouTube video.

Jump-Starting Tips, and a Trick

Hard to believe with the weather we've had, but one of these days you might just have to jump-start a car.

Here's a web site that tells you all about it:

(Once again, I seem to be having trouble making hot links work. Until my on-line editor bails me out, copy-and-paste the following into your browser:)

www.aa1car.com/library/battery_safety.htm

But I had to help a friend jump-start an old BMW the other day, and I learned something new (hey - it happens).

There were two sets of jumper cables available to us, and I chose what appeared to be the thicker gauge because thin cables cannot carry as much current, and/or they get hot if you need to crank the dead car for too long (the BMW had been sitting for several months so that was a distinct possibility).

After taking all the above precautions and ensuring there was gasoline, oil, coolant, etc., we cranked it over.

Click-click-clicketty-click.

No start.

We let it sit for a while (and yes, the cables did start to get a bit warm) and tried again.

Click-click-clicketty-click.

Jiggled the connections to make sure they were solid.

Click-click-clicketty-click.

Then I thought - hmm-mm; I wanted the thicker cables for more current. What would happen if I doubled up on the cables?

So feeling very MacGyverish, I connected the second set of cables in parallel with the first set.

VROOM!!

Fired on the first crank.

I presume the extra cables did in fact allow enough current to get to the BMW's starter to turn the car over.

So instead of carrying ONE set of jumpers with you at all times, maybe you should get two?

Or maybe just buy a decent set in the first place.

Canadian Car/Truck of the Year - Test Fest Tidbit, 2 of a series

It was "Deutschland uber (almost) Alles" at this year's Test Fest.

Of the nine car categories and three utility vehicle categories, German brands won seven, the Japanese won four, and domestic brands only one.

It was a particularly tough session for General Motors. They really are building some of the best cars they have ever built, cars that do (or should) stack up against the best the world has to offer. Which is why they're running this "May the Best Car Win" ad campaign, and offering to buy your car back if you don't like it.

I had figured going in that at least two of GM's entries would fare well.

Not well enough.

The Buick LaCrosse scored third in Family Car Over $30,000, behind Ford Taurus and Ford Fusion Hybrid. I voted in that category and had LaCrosse ahead of both Fords, but not enough of my colleagues agreed. It scored well in styling inside and out, and in quality. It was easily the quickest of the lot, ride and handling were about dead even, but the Buick took a metre and a half more to stop from 100 km/h, and that counted fairly heavily against it.

While the LaCrosse certainly felt roomy to me, with the most comfortable back seat, appearances obviously can be deceiving because the measurements don't appear to bear that out. Odd, given that Buick deliberately designed the car to appeal to Chinese customers, many of whom like to be driven by chauffeurs, and trunk space was even sacrificed for more rear seat room.

So I don't know how they got that wrong.

The Chevrolet Equinox finished second to the Subaru Outback in SUV/SUV Under $35,000, although GM must take some heart knowing it outpointed the Toyota Venza. Again. the Chevy had the quickest 0 - 100 km/h sprint time, but was also the best braker, albeit by a small margin. The very impressive Subaru also scored major 'emissions' points by virtue of earning a PZEV (Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle) rating.

So for GM, it was a case of better luck next year.