Everyone knows a biker friend that has been knocked over while driving their ridiculously over-powered Motorbike at some stage or other. The thing is, why wouldn’t you want to drive a bike? It’s fuel efficient, exhilarating and more importantly you can get to your destination quicker. We’re told by the people at bike safety foundations such as “Think Bike” that we should be careful and courteous to our Bike driving compatriots on the road as in an accident they are more likely to be injured than you in your big scary car. I say to bikers: “when you learn how to drive we’ll stop running you over”.

Now before you think I’m trying to tell everyone to run over every member of the Hell’s Angels lets take a step back and see why I think that bikers are a hypocritical nuisance.

Lets take a look at the average bike rider: most of the time they don’t stay in a lane and tend to straddle the middle of two lanes. Now bear in mind they never stick to the left hand side of the road like bicycle drivers do. Oh no, the motor-biker needs to make his presence known by zipping in-between two lanes (usually with cars in both lanes) to show his dominance in the petrol engine world. This fact is ever more pronounced when it comes to the highway, especially in traffic. You see, the biker feels that they do not have to suffer in traffic and zips between lanes (not in lanes, between) so that they can get to the bar faster than everyone else. Now lets see what the issue is here…. oh that’s right: you’re sitting in car drivers blindspots where they cannot see you and then you are shocked when they pull out to take the empty space in the lane next to them! It comes as a shocker why bikers get knocked over in traffic when you put it like that right? Here’s the simplest way I can put it: I stay in a lane, why can bikers not? If you think back to your drivers license test, one of the things that sticks out is the piece of advice that say “don’t overtake from the left”. Think about that one bikers.

The second issue is why bikers feel the need to drive at warp-speed all the time? I get the fact that your bike can accelerate from 0-100 in less than three seconds but here’s an important truth: When you’re going at 140Km/h it takes a long time to stop let alone slow down. In this time you’re most likely careening over the taxi that jumped the light. Here’s another thing most bike drivers don’t seem to know: the speed-limit is 60 Km/h in most areas and 120Km/h on most highways. In my car, I have to stick to these rules so why do bike owners feel the need to speed consistently. Lets be honest, people drive shockingly and instead of relying on cars to stop when you’ve just hit warp factor 9, slow dooooooooown.

Now of course I’m generalising here but I feel I’m touching on a point most other drivers get angry about as well. The simple fact is that bike owners are their own worst enemies with their inability to pick a lane, drive at a reasonable speed and the need to weave between cars no matter how much or how little traffic there is. I’ll “Think Bike” the moment you stop driving like an idiot.

Being a fan of green technology I thought it would make a nice change from the politics on this blog to take a look at some interesting engine technology that you can already find in cars today.

The first engine I found was the newly released (at least in South Africa) Smart stop/start system. A few years ago when in Bangkok it always fascinated me how the Tuk-tuk drivers would stop the engines on their vehicles when at traffic, even if it was for a few seconds. I always assumed it was fairly silly that they did this because ultimately how much petrol can one really save? Turns out between 8 and 20 percent and for a change I was wrong. What Smart have done is put automatic stop/start systems into all their cars which means when you’re idling at the robots your engine is technically off, saving you petrol. The beauty is that as the driver you never notice the transition as it is timed to your braking and acceleration.

The second fantastic engine technology is that of the “Twincharger” where a turbocharger and a supercharger are placed on one engine thereby negating the downsides of each technology. As an example a turbocharger tends to kick in at higher revolutions while the supercharger works at lower revolutions. This means the engine is constantly being boosted in power meaning you can get the power of a 2 liter engine out of a 1.4 liter engine. The beauty here is that despite the power you get a combined cycle consumption that is lower or similar to a 1.6 liter engine in the same car body despite nearly double the power. Similar use of turbocharging a smaller engine can be seen by Fiat with their 1.4 turbo engine that kicks out the same power as the 2 liter engined Golf 5 and even Mercedes that have managed to get the same performance from a 1.6 liter engine as they could with a 1.8 liter.

Consequently what would be ideal is to combine these two technologies and fairly soon we’ll be seeing all sorts of combinations as European and American regulation. Personally I’m looking forward to a world where we all get sub 5 liters per 100 kilometers in normal driving. Until then, stop/start and twincharger technologies are the best place to be.

I don’t know if anyone told the motoring industry in South Africa that there is a recession out there but something seems horribly wrong with this group of people. The statistics are in, car sales are down by around thirty percent month on month from the year before but yet still no one in the motoring industry is getting the message. I think I’ve worked the issue out here. It’s a very subtle problem and it’s taken me many, many hours to work this one out. I hope most people are not overly shocked by this realisation but here it is:

Cars cost more money than people can afford

Lets take a look at the numbers here. A new Golf 6 costs R214400 for a 1.6 liter engine with no extras. Now if you add something such as a GPS built into the car (which costs around R2500 if you go down to the local computer store) it costs a ridiculous R28,290. I think this is a minor indication that the people that set car prices, are clearly off their rocker. How on earth can a GPS cost nearly thirty grand? The price for the current range topper, the 2 liter diesel, is R298000. Now considering the nearly ninety thousand rand difference you’d expect some extra’s thrown in such as leather seats or something for your trouble? Nope, the only difference is the two grand cruise control. Considering the diesel is the same as in the previous generation Golf, surely it should be cheaper since there were no development costs?

Do I not understand how these things work or someone is getting horribly ripped off.

Seriously though, who the hell has three hundred grand to spend on a hatchback car? It’s an absolutely ridiculous amount of money in this day and age. Using the three hundred grand analogy you’ll need to pay over six grand a month for 54 months to afford this car. I don’t know anyone who, at the age of 24 could comfortably afford that without not living in their parents basement. That’s a lot of cash and the simple logic is this: imagine if you charged less for cars and then maybe you’d sell more of them? I’d love to know the profit margin on vehicles as it must be totally ridiculous. I say ridiculous purely because the current Golf 6 is supposedly cheaper to build than the outgoing Golf 5 yet it costs a substantially larger amount more.

Guess I don’t get how the world works.

Take a well selling company such as Honda; relatively affordable with a lot of the mod-cons yet this is how many they sold:

Small/Light Cars: Jazz with 4833 sold

Compact Cars: Civic with 3010 sold

Executive Cars: Accord with 1549 sold

Sports Cars: S2000 with 30 sold

SUV’s: CR-V with 1809 sold

Minibus: FR-V: 553 sold

Grand total of 11784 vehicles sold throughout the whole of 2008. A cursory glance of the Honda South Africa website then tells me that there are 33 dealers in the country. What this means is that each one sells and average of 357 cars. Let me finally explain as to why I find this totally fascinating.

Running a dealership must be extremely expensive. There’s rent, salaries, utilities and telephone bills to name a few. The reality is that we’re looking at a couple of hundred thousand rand per month just to keep the doors open. Sure, a lot of costs are defrayed by the servicing sections but a lot of cars have motor plans so this isn’t exactly a major profit center. This is all before a single cent is spent on marketing, an expense that I must imagine is quite substantial in the car market.

So here’s the thing, if each dealer sells roughly 357 cars and spends hundreds of thousands on expenses a month then what on earth is the markup on each vehicle? If they make on average R10000 per vehicle that’s a mere 3.5 million rand a year, not enough to make a profit. A R20000 profit isn’t much better with a profit of only 7 million. Bear in mind that this is merely a pre-expenses profit.

This brings me to my final point: How on earth do car companies make money? I assume the only way is to add a massive markup to their cars and that’s pretty fascinating. I wonder whether most people wouldn’t need massive, double-story dealerships that are lit up like the sun at night if they could save twenty grand off the price of their car? I understand that these costs need to be added on so as to support the service the dealer offers but ultimately I feel as though this seems like a pretty archaic method of running a business.

With the car companies in such a slump it’s time for the industry to catch a serious wake up call and realise how they’re wasting money on unneccessary frills.

Nissan 370Z

As someone with a passion for small, two seat sports cars the Nissan 350Z has been a perennial favourite on my “cool cars to perv” list for many years. While the 350Z is a very cool car it’s got two very glaring issues. The first is that it’s got looks only a mother could love and the interior was an extreme let down. The incoming replacement, the 370Z looks to remedy all these issues.

The 370Z is the sixth generation of Nissan Z cars and visually borrows heavily from the Nissan halo car, the GT-R. The 370Z is a lot rounder than its predecessor the 350Z and is slightly wider. It’s certainly no revolution on the theme but it is a nice improvement on what wasn’t exactly the nicest looking car in the world. Underneath the hood is a brand new 3.7 liter V6 a pretty heady 248KW of power. The engine is mated with either a 6-speed manual or 7-speed automatic. The manual is particularly clever as it has a little light that tells you when to shift up to a higher gear ensuring optimum timing. Both transmissions also have a “synchronized downshift rev-matching system” that matches the cars rev’s with a lower gear when shifting down. This is useful to keep optimum power when going relatively fast.

2008_nissan_350z_interior

The other major stumbling block of the previous model was the interior and here the 370Z excels. Look, it’s still very Japanese engineering in style but it is certainly a lot nicer than than before. Features include satellite navigation, iPod connectors and a lot less plastic than the old model.

Pricing in South Africa is yet to be confirmed but estimates are around R500000. It’s certainly not cheap and at that price is going up against the Porsche Boxster. The Boxster has a lot less power but certainly has a higher snob value. I personally cannot see a point of getting the Boxster is the 370Z is as dynamically brilliant as it’s been reported to be. At the moment only a coupe is available but a convertible is coming soon.

Another amazing looking car from Nissan. If you’re in the market for a two-seater rocket then look no further.

For as long as I can remember the entry level roadster to buy was the Mazda MX-5. The likes of Toyota have attempted to bring out a rival in the form of the MR-2 and so did MG with the TF series. Unfortunately for competition the MX-5 has reigned as king for the past 19 odd years, a pretty long time to be considered segment leader. Volkswagen have recently unveiled what they call a design study but I certainly hope it makes it into production.

Essentially we have a mid-engined diesel roadster based on the Golf platform. It shares striking looks with the likes of the VW Scirocco and the new Golf 6. Internally there is a 2.o liter Diesel engine producing a more than capable 132KW. Mated with a 6-speed DSG automatic gearbox and you’re looking 0-100KM/H speed of around 6.6 seconds. Its BlueSport monicker means that there are some new technologies resulting in increased fuel saving. These technologies include a start-stop engine and mild hybrid technologies such as energy regeneration. What this means is that you’re looking at a fuel economy of 4.3 liters of Diesel fuel per 100 kilometers.

Unfortunately not much else is known about this concept other than the above-mentioned specifications. What is known is that this is very much a concept and nothing has been said about production. I’d imagine in the current economic state that there is less desire for small, entry level roadsters. With Porsche recently taking such a majority share in VW there is going to be even less desire for the concept as it could cause a dent in Porsche Boxster sales. I’m hoping this comes into production but at the very least there is always the Mazda MX-5 as a substitute.

With car companies taking a major pounding the past few months I’ve been pondering how it would be best to solve the problems. I think the solution is a simple one, we’re basically given to many options. Take a company such as company such as General Motors: they own Chevrolet, Opel, Cadillac, Saab and Hummer to name but a few. Now if you look at their company, despite having such a wide range of brands there is little to no sharing of research and development between these subsidiaries. This is pretty stupid from a cost perspective.

This stands in stark contrast to Volkswagen, owners of the their own brand as well as Audi, Lamborghini, Skoda, Seat and Bugatti. The VW style of business is to have a gigantic corporate “parts bin”. What you’ll find is that VW’s, Audi’s, Skoda’s and Seat’s might all share the same platform as well as engines with only the physical styling being different. This obviously allows for the development of arguably the best engines in the world while being able to cut down on costs.

Then we can take a look at a company such as BMW. Take the venerable 3-series sedan. You can get it in a 320, 320 diesel, 323, 325, 330, 330 diesel, 335 and finally M3 models. Now correct me if I’m wrong but is it necessary to have (off the top of my head) eight different models in one car? I’m not saying that BMW drivers shouldn’t have a choice between “small penis” all the way to “tiny penis” engine sizes but realistically do we need so many options?

It’s a classic “economies of scale” concept. If companies created one great car (per segment) with one great engine we’d still have a huge array of potential cars which could be cheaper and more fuel efficient due to R&D money being poured into one specific engine. Hell, you could even have a low power and a high power model to satiate those who need to over compensate. If money was pumped into developing two engines, there would be much higher levels of innovation if the mandate on these engines would be to improve power, efficiency and their green credentials. Not only would they be vastly better engines and cars, the costs would be lowered as well. Lower costs for research and development means lowered costs for the clients (or even higher profits for the car companies) and that’s something I cannot find problematic.

Most of you reading this article are thinking “but surely then we’d be stuck with millions of dodgy Toyota Corolla’s on the road?”. Well I think there are enough car makes to justify different choices and I’m not saying kill different car segments or cut down on brands, I’m just saying car makers need to be a lot smarter with how they go about running their businesses. There’s lots of room for overlaps in the various parts it takes to make a car and it’s a crying shame that so few manufacturers have adopted this. It’s downsize or die for many car companies and it’s about time intelligent uses of resources took preference over satisfying the customers ridiculous needs. The only reason the customer is ridiculous is due to the car companies pandering to their needs. It’s downsize or get out.

I just read an article (available here) that has an American business owner offering a free $1000 to his employees as long as they buy a new American (read Ford, Chrysler and General Motors) car. His logic is that he knows lots of people drawing pensions and other health insurance benefits from the companies so it’s in his best interest to promote purchases in his company.

With the big 3 American car firms being denied their massive government funded bailout, the pressure is on for the big three to survive the next few months. The question is though, would you buy an American car just to protect jobs and possibly the world economy? The job fallout from the loss of these three giants as well as their suppliers and subsidiaries is estimated at 3 million people. Considering that’s one percent of the American population you’re looking at a substantial economic downturn. In the past few months over five-hundred thousand jobs have been lost and there has been a huge knock on effect to the American economy.

The facts about American cars are irrefutable. They can’t go round a corner faster than ten kilometers an hour and the they use a few liters of petrol per kilometer. If you go round a corner faster than the above mentioned speed you’ll most likely end up upside down with flames surrounding you. In short, they generally produce rubbish cars with major defects although they’ll tell you it’s just a “Lemon”.

I’m torn though. Is the thought of protecting millions of jobs, not only in America but with their overseas subsidiaries, worth it? I’m actually struggling to take a stance on this matter, an unusual thing for me. The main problem for the Big 3 is that they spend most of their money on pensions and health insurance for their employees. Their employees are not willing to back down from their desired increases and frankly here is the problem.

So in an effort to solve this problem I will give my only slightly educated opinion on how to make the Big 3 profitable again.

Step one, sort things out with the Unions. For some reason these Unions are exceptionally powerful and the auto manufacturers have no ability to stand up to them. Sure, it’s understandable they want better pensions but there isn’t going to be any pensions if the companies fold. Step two, cut out the bloat. A large problem for these auto manufacturers is that they are propped up by a few successful brands while their other brands flop. If a brand isn’t making a profit then it has to go. Rather loose a couple of thousand jobs on one brand than loose everyone’s job when the companies fold. Step three, build decent cars. The simple fact is that people want smaller cars these days. Companies like Chrysler who continue to build rubbish cars such as the Voyager, a roughly 65000 seater, bus need to catch a wake up call and produce smaller, more fuel efficient cars. The Big 3 haven’t made smaller, more fuel efficient cars as it’s never been regulated by government. Now is the time to make these types of cars even if it’s not required.

So in the answer to my topic question, no I would not buy an American car just to save jobs. I think it’s abysmal that they cannot sort themselves out when they have billions to work with. There’s no denying it will be difficult and painful for the auto makers to save themselves but it is possible with a little bit of common sense and tightening of the purse strings.

While this incident didn’t happen to me personally, my father was a victim of useless BMW service. This post serves as something of an experiment to see whether anyone from BMW will respond and make amends for arguably the worst service ever.

My father is an owner of an E46, 318i BMW. It’s certainly not the flashiest or most expensive BMW but a client is a client and everything should be done to retain that client surely?

Needless to say, my father drove into a pavement, popped his front tyre and came home with a good part of his undercarriage on his backseat. Needless to say, repairs were needed since he was going away today (11th of October). The accident happened roughly a week and a half ago. The car was picked up yesterday from BMW after repairs were completed. Not only did we have to pay for the car and claim from insurance (rather than BMW claiming from insurance) but had to wait an hour at BMW Bedfordview for the car to be prepared despite them saying the car was waiting.

This morning, when packing the car my father noticed a minor, yet relevant detail; no spare wheel. Now this would have been a hapless error had he not specifically asked for them to make sure there was a spare wheel as he was going to be driving to Durban today. I’m more than happy to admit that mistakes can happen and that things can be forgotten if handled correctly.

When my father phoned BMW he was informed that there was no tyre available and that the manager was not available to talk. Ultimately he was met with indifference and derision by the lady at the call centre. Amazingly in the whole of BMW Bedfordview there was not a single 16-inch tyre and no one was willing to make the effort to go find out. This is arguably the worst customer service I’ve heard of in a while.

At the end of the day we all make mistakes and as long as one admits that mistake and at least attempts to rectify them customers are willing to forgive and forget. BMW Bedfordview has shown they don’t care about their customers despite the mistakes being purely theirs. I have a feeling this is the last BMW my family will ever buy. Negative product evangelism is never a good idea and frankly something that should be avoided like the plague, something BMW does not understand.

Despite the most ridiculous name for a car (arguably ever) the newly released Suzuki Jimny is about to become a major hit in South Africa. In our country where having a 4X4 actually makes sense (considering the state of our roads) the Jimny brings affordable motoring to the offroad loving crowd.

Suzuki had a similar vehicle available in the 80’s called the Samurai and was basically an 800CC engine with a couple of wheels and a really shocking interior. I had the pleasure of driving one in Thailand a few years back and I found it to be a really quality vehicle that managed off-roading really well.

With Suzuki now back in South Africa this is the third vehicle the company has released in SA and this little car looks like a winner.

Despite being powered by a small 1.3 litre engine, a body weight of just over a ton means that this little car can move and has a better power to weight ratio than a much larger Landrover. Due to the small engine you get a low 7.2l/100KM fuel index which means it’s a pretty green 4X4. Top speed is 140KM/H and it’ll take you 14 seconds to get to 100KM/H but if offroad ability is your interest then this car is a winner.

Features wise you have power windows, power steering assistance, central locking, aircon, radio/CD, split/folding rear seatbacks, front crash bags, anti-lock brakes and roof rails. It’s got all the modern amenities of a normal car yet the abilities of a much more expensive and larger 4X4. The ability to change from two wheels drive, to four wheel drive and then to four wheel low down torque range is done by one button.

So it’s not the best looking car in the world but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. At R149000 you’d be hard pressed to find as capable a 4X4. Yes, it has the looks only a mother could love but at the price and considering it’s ability you’ll come to love this car.