How to insure collector cars

Earlier this week I was reading through my newspaper’s weekly driving section when I came across this article about insuring collector cars. http://www.driving.ca/insure+collector+cars/5477711/story.html  by David Grainger. It is obvious to me that he has had a very bad experience with insurance. In the article he makes some incorrect statements and strange assumptions. I will be responding with information that is correct in Ontario, Canada but the principles should be similar in most places. If you have a specific question please ask. I will do my best to answer.

He first suggests that all insurance companies are only after their own interests and the interests of their shareholders. He is correct that these companies are companies. They are out to make a profit delivering a service. What he does not seem to realize is that any insurance company in North America that has the word “mutual” in their name is actually owned by their policy holders. Think of it like a co-op store.

What insurance companies do is carry risk for the policy holders. To do this properly, they must understand what the risk is. Brokers and agents (they are two different things) are often used to people being price sensitive. They will often quote in such a way to give people the lowest rates they can.

While this is good for people’s budget, it can leave them at risk and cause great problems when it is time to collect.

It is always in your best interest to tell your insurance person exactly what you have and its significance. Here is an example:

You go out and finally buy a 1987 Buick GNX with 95 miles on it. It does exist out there: http://www.johnscotti.com/en/used/1987-buick-gnx-284-of-547/2153439/

So cool!
Pic borrowed from the ad mentioned above

For those of you who don’t know, the GNX was a high performance version of the already high performance Buick Grand National.

This is the quieter version
Pic borrowed from: http://my.opera.com/carpictures/blog/?tag=wallpaper&startidx=30&nodaylimit=1

So you have spent all your birthday money, and then some, to acquire your new toy. Now you want to drive it, so you have to get it licensed and insured. To save some money you decide to see if you can get away with insuring it as a 1987 Buick Regal. Technically it is the truth and who is it going to hurt?

Pretty much the same thing, right?
Pic borrowed from: http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/1987-Buick-Regal-2-Door-Coupe-Pictures-t29578_pi8026200

Two months later, you are in the mall parking lot. A mini-van full of screaming kids, piloted by a haggard dad who hasn’t has his Starbucks yet, doesn’t notice that you hit the brakes. It comes ploughing in to you. The bumper is shot, as is the trunk deck and both rear quarter panels. Now your nightmare begins.

The insurance adjuster looks at the damage, which is about $4,000. Then they look around on the open market and find that you can buy a 1987 Buick Regal coupe for $3,000. So, the value of the damage exceeds the value of the car that they insured and they offer you $3,000. It is about this time that you start screaming blue murder. Explaining at the top of your lungs that it is a limited edition work of art and they are screwing you.

So the moral of my little parable, tell your insurance company exactly what you have. They will then be able to assess the risk, charge you appropriately and be there for you should the unthinkable happen.


The next point that David Grainger makes is that the insurance may not cover the entire costs involved in restoring a car. He is right, but again you have to understand what insurance is and what it does.

Insurance is there to take away the financial risk of losing an item, such as your car. They determine this value based on the open market. On newer vehicles this is fairly easy. We know the purchase price off the new car lot and there are lots of used ones available. They are all going to have similar mileage and very few people customize brand new cars to any great degree. If this kind of a car goes missing, you can go to the open market and find something similar without much trouble.

On classic cars things are very different. Here is another example:

You buy a 1968 AMX for $6,000.

Just a little elbow grease and it’ll be fine (actual 1968 AMX available for $6K)
Pic borrowed from: http://www.amx-perience.com/classifieds/showproduct.php?product=1538&sort=1&cat=2&page=1

It is in ok shape but you want it to be perfect. You roll it in to your garage and spend all your weekends for a couple of years making it right. You source all the correct parts and spend whatever it takes to ensure that the car is in showroom condition. A year after you have finished, some kids take it for a joyride. Because they have never driven anything with that sort of power, it doesn’t take them long to plant it into a wall.

For sake of argument, let’s say that you had done a complete, frame off, down to the nuts and bolts. It cost you $40,000. You also put in 1000 hours of work. So how does this all play in to the value you are going to get from the insurance company? Sorry to tell ya folks, it doesn’t. On the open market you can buy a similar car for $29,500. So you are going to get $29,500.

Very pretty (another 1968 AMX, available for $29,500)
Pic borrowed from: http://www.amx-perience.com/classifieds/showproduct.php?product=1553&sort=1&cat=2&page=1

Why? Because the vale is determined by what the open market values it at. The open market gets to decide because it is impartial. You are always going to value your own stuff more than anybody else. You obviously like it, that is why you have it. The insurance company has to make sure that it doesn’t over pay or it won’t be in business very long.

Why is it not just based on what you put in to the car? It is because there are a lot of ways that you can put money in to a car that does not add value. When I was in car sales I met a guy who had put $20,000 worth of modifications in to his Eagle Talon. He had customized it so much that it actually ended up devaluing the car. It was too personalized for anybody else to drive.

Another way to think about it is this: What would you pay for a 1980 Chevy Chevette? Even if it was in pristine condition, unless it has some sort of emotional significance for you, I doubt you would want to pay more than $5,000. Even this number may be a little high. Now think about what somebody would have to do to make it worth $10,000. Did you come up with anything better than loading the trunk with gold bars? Nope, neither did I.

This was the best picture of a Chevette I could find
Pic borrowed from: http://allworldcars.com/wordpress/?p=2208

Classic cars are harder to value than new cars because parts are harder to find and no two cars are ever treated the same. Some cars are driven by people who clean out the air vents with cotton swabs after every trip to the supermarket. Other people drive their cars like they stole them and treat the interior like a frat house.

The take away here is this: If you have a car that you waited years to buy and then you have put so much effort in to restoring, why would you not take as much care in selecting your insurance? Find an insurance professional that you trust. Explain to them exactly what you want to insure and how you are planning to use it (IE: daily driver or only out on sunny weekends). Ask them to describe their process in handling a claim. Get the answers in writing and put it in your car file. You do have a file for all your car related paperwork don’t you?

If you play straight and understand what your insurance company will do in the event of a claim, you will have a much better insurance experience.

Adventures in radio instalation

I started to write this blog post by looking back at my old posts. I was going to comment on what had changed and what hadn’t. This was where I started but one story started to take over. I decided to just go with it. I may return to the original concept later, but for now I am going to go with the story that seems to want to be told.


I still think about my first car, the 1976 MGB, from time to time. There is an equal balance of nostalgia and relief that I am not still trying to keep it running. Last time I mentioned it I promised I would tell the story of what happened when I installed the radio in it. So here it is:

The car was mostly in running condition when I bought it. When you are a young man with his first car you look past a lot of reality to see the potential. Once some of the basic necessities were fixed, like re-attaching the bumper and putting in a working fuel pump, I was able to move on to some of the nice to haves, like a top without big rips and a radio.

In reality, the radio was also a necessity. I was about to drive the car from Vancouver to Ottawa and 4000 km is a long way to drive with no radio. I was also doing it with a 20 year old single page map. You can make some interesting choices in your early 20’s.

I purchased the cheapest new car stereo that you could get from an actual store and set about installing it.

My job that summer was to process film from security cameras. Our office was one room in an industrial park and the processing equipment was loud and hot. I figured I could run the equipment while I installed the radio in the parking lot right outside the office.

Industrial parks, like strip malls without the whimsy
Pic borrowed from:  http://www.copansindustrialpark.com/


It was about 7 pm, so the industrial park was practically abandoned. I say practically because there was a police car sitting in the next parking lot. It was the only other car in the whole facility.

Ever so subtle
Pic borrowed from:  http://www.newson6.com/story/15416821/shots-fired-at-tulsa-police-patrol-car-late-wednesday

I spent my time running from inside the office to check the film processer and in the parking lot cursing the engineers at MG. I swear they must have hired children to put these things together. I am 6’ 2”. For me to install the radio, I had to put myself upside down in the driver’s seat and snake my arms through the dashboard.

And you thought I was exaggerating
Pic borrowed from:  http://www.britishv8.org/MG/BrianMcCullough.htm


While I was starting to wrap things up the police car came screaming in to my parking lot. It pulled to a stop in a cool Starsky and Hutch inspired angle. The high beams were on and the door flew open.

It looked a little like this
Pic borrowed from:  http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=police+car,+door+open&um=1&hl=en&tbm=i
sch&tbnid=ZbXEm1bZLXPbhM:&imgrefurl=http://www.yumaaz.gov/17822.htm&docid=rLVDPgB0
G331gM&w=300&h=243&ei=AM5qTpOrEczegQeVr93pBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=418&vpy=1
57&dur=1755&hovh=194&hovw=240&tx=127&ty=97&page=1&tbnh=153&tbnw=189&start=0&nds
=9&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&biw=1198&bih=536



Maybe I was just a little too naive. I saw a police car. The police are our friends. I took about two steps towards the car before I heard “Stay right where you are, keep your hands where I can see them”. This was not good.

A second police car came flying in to the parking lot. The second officer jumped out of the car and the first officer yelled “Cover me! I’m going in”. He came towards me demanding “How many people are here?” I must have told him six times that I was alone. Right after that I received my first frisking. I can’t recommend them. I was still being “covered” by the second officer when the first officer said he was going to search my car and wanted to know if he was going to find anything he didn’t like. I told him that there was a knife in my tool kit that I had been using to strip wire. It was about this time when the third police car arrived on the scene. The third officer seemed to be higher ranking and while he was chatting with the second officer the first officer finished searching my car. He then asked me for my licence and registration. I told him that they were in my wallet which was in my right rear pocket. I still had my hands over my head. Nobody had said I could put them down and I figured that I was playing a very serious game of Simon Says.

Simon says he has an itchy trigger finger
Pic borrowed from:  http://www.thegamegal.com/2011/01/30/simon-says/


They ran my information through the computer. After everything came back saying that I was ok I overheard the second officer explaining that I was suspicious because the windows of the office were covered in tinfoil. I invited them in to the office. As soon as they saw the pictures of robberies and frauds their faces dropped a little. I guess it destroyed their fantasy of taking down a drug kingpin.

They thanked me for my time and proceeded to have a little conference over by their cruisers. I finished the installation, put away my tools and finished up my work in the office.

Now this is where things get interesting. The police had left ..... well they almost left. One of the cruisers pulled in to the next parking lot and sat there with its lights off. Now keep in mind we are in a huge industrial park, at about nine in the evening. There are exactly two cars in the whole complex and one of the cars is mine.

I decided that the best course of action was to follow every traffic rule I could remember. So I started the car, put on my seatbelt, set my radio to a quiet level, signalled and checked all directions and slowly pulled out of the parking spot. I drove to the parking lot exit and stopped at the stop line. My friend in the next parking lot pulled up to his parking lot exit.

There was no other traffic but I still checked all directions before pulling in to the road. The police officer followed at a very discreet distance, about five car lengths. He followed me for about twenty minutes. I drove calmly and safely until he got board.

I waited five minutes before I cranked the radio over to eleven and put the pedal to the floor.  

Adam Carolla vs the Zombies

I am annoyed at Adam Carolla. I was almost finished a blog post about what vehicle to drive in a zombie apocalypse and he launches The Car Show on Speed Channel and it is painful.


Just in case you were wondering about the zombie resistant vehicles, it goes like this:

Your vehicle should be a 4x4, with a proper low range. It should not be any form of all wheel drive. You will need to be able to navigate all sorts of terrain. You will not be able to rely on tow trucks to come and rescue you. Road maintenance may end up being a little spotty as well.

It should also be diesel powered. You have great fuel economy and engines that can easily last up to 400 000 km.

If you have a lot of money and advance warning, get one of these:

The Knight XV (The H2 is only there for size comparison)
Pic borrowed from: http://harryallen.info/?p=2416

A lot of people think that military vehicles are the way to go. My concern is trying to acquire one. Getting on to a military base during peace time can be hard enough; I imagine a zombie incident may make it even harder.

Hi fellas! I’m just here to borrow a tank.
Pic borrowed from: http://www.ilovephotoblogs.com/specializing-in-military-photography-nick-strocchia

I think I would be heading to the closest city vehicle yard or utility vehicle yard. They tend to be 4x4, diesel and they tend to have a lot of things that would come in handy, like generators.

Lots of useful things and there likely wouldn't be anybody guarding them
Pic borrowed from: http://www.dixiecustom.com/utilitytruck.htm

Now back to Adam Carolla. I am more annoyed that The Car Show held so much promise and they didn’t follow through on. They have a great mix of car guys on the panel. They have different backgrounds and experience but rather than making good points about cars, they all seem to be trying to hit the punch line of any discussion.

Stop trying so hard to be funny and just talk about cars!
Pic from: http://www.motorator.com/blog/general-automotive/speed-channel-premieres-the-car-show-with-adam-carolla

They have a segment that they call 0 to 60. They have four or five topics and they spend sixty seconds discussing each one. It isn’t long enough to get in to any topic in detail.

Now they are a show produced by a cable channel so their production budget is low, I get that. The problem is their writing and editing. For example they did a segment on the 24 hours of Lemons, which is a really cool event where people race cars that must be worth $ 500 or less. Rather than focusing on how this racing series means that enthusiasts don’t need to get gigantic sponsors to participate in, they made it all about the comedy.

They have reviewed some exotic cars but the reviews have been simplistic. It seemed like they were afraid to annoy the nice companies. It almost came across as a commercial plug for the cars rather than a review.

One of the most disturbing elements is a very strong undercurrent of misogyny. In one episode the guys had a competition to teach young ladies how to drive a sports car with a manual transmission. In another episode they tried to see how many women they could fit in to a Mini. They had “modified” girls and “unmodified” girls. Neither of these segments were about cars. Both of these segments were about showing T and A.

I was really looking forward to this show. I have seen and heard some of Adam’s podcasting around cars. They are funny and insightful. One of the most fascinating and relatable segments they do on the podcast is having celebrities talk about their first cars. It is fun, entertaining and relatable.

Long story short, skip the show catch the podcast.

http://www.adamcarolla.com/CarCastBlog/

If I get enough interest I will pontificate furthur on my zombie survival vehicle choices.

Things that looked good on paper

Once in a while we will be hit with a flash of brilliance. In that perfect moment one can see what should be done, everything required to do it and how it will make everything better. It is somewhere in between the idea and the implementation that things can go horribly horribly wrong.


General Motors immediately sprung to mid when I started thinking about this. There is something about this company that allows it to repeatedly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. My suspicion is that the accountants trump the designers. There are always small concessions that you can make to price that the average consumer will never noticeably impact the client. GM has a tendency to pass that point.

1962 Chevy Corvair

Image borrowed from: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/david_e._davis_jr._convincing_chevy_to_enter_a_team_of_corvairs_in_the_1961_shell_4000_trans-canada_rally-column/gallery/1962_chevrolet_corvair_700_series_coupe_photo_17


The Chevy Corvair is a classic example of a good idea gone bad. Most North American cars were front engine / rear wheel drive. Rear engine / rear wheel drive was something that you found in Porches and VWs. This set up saved materials and space. It also put the weight of the engine over the drive wheels. It gave the Corvair a nice look. It had a huge trunk and good passenger space.

It all fell apart with the rear suspension. Instead of using the design of the sporty Porsche, they borrowed the suspension design from the VW Bug. Keep in mind that the VW Bug had less than 60 hp while the Corvair was 80 hp and marketed as a sports car. By the time they upgraded the suspension on the Corvair the reputation was shot. The promotion and production of the car slowly petered out. It made GM a company that is still very risk averse.

You can almost smell the hair mousse and parachute pants

Image found at: http://www.auto-facts.org/1984-pontiac-fiero-tps.html

The Fiero should have been a slam dunk for GM. The marketing concept was reminiscent of the original Mustang, a good looking sporty car that somebody with their first job could afford. They borrowed he design from the Fiat X1/9 that had been in production since 1972. Once they had the idea they ran through the GM parts bin to save even more costs. This car should have been a slam dunk. Toyota stole the same 12 year old design at the same time. The Toyota was produced for 23 years. The Fiero was produced for 5, which is about the shortest amount of time a major manufacturer can kill a model. It took them four years to kill the much reviled Pontiac Aztek (which I will discuss later).

Fiat X 1/9, where they stole the designs from

Image from: http://ref-fiat.info/fiat-x19-us-1982.html

Toyota MR2, their version of the same idea

Image borrowed from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/45676495@N05/5029189815/

It seems you need three major screw ups:

First, GM’s marketing department was not promoting the vehicle that the assembly line was producing. The original Fiero was designed as a sporty and fun everyday car. The marketing department was selling a red blooded fire breathing sports car. Nothing ruins a product’s reputation faster than disappointed clients. The suspension was borrowed from the Chevette and the Phoenix / Citation. It was functional rather than performance orientated. It was the same story with the engine (but more on that in the next point). It wasn’t a bad car. It just wasn’t what people were expecting.

Second, there were so many mechanical problems. Many of the problems came back to the challenges of cooling a mid-engine car. They put the radiator all the way at the front. This means they had to run the coolant to the front and back again. They managed to leave the pipes used for this in a position where they could be crushed by people trying to jack up the car. This also meant that there was a special procedure for adding coolant. The car had to be running and some versions of the instructions say that you had to remove the thermostat. If you didn’t do these things there would be an air bubble in the system and that would make the car overheat. Then, due to a misprint somewhere, the dipstick and the owner’s manual indicated that the engine required 3 litres of oil. Unfortunately it required 4. There was also a flaw in the casting of the connecting rods. Due to some imperfections they could shatter if things got too hot.

It was a perfect storm of mistakes. When you add people driving it hard, like the sports car the marketing department kept telling people it was, the engine fires were inevitable.

Third, GM took too long to rectify the problems. By the time they started addressing the issues the car’s reputation was shot.

It was only a couple of years later that Mazda released the incredibly successful Miata. Mazda was able to use this to redefine their whole company. Mazda ate GM’s lunch.


Pontiac managed to miss the mark again with the Aztek. Large vehicles to haul the family around have been top selling vehicles for decades. In the 70’s this turf was owned by the station wagon. They took regular sedans, stretched the roofline back to the bumper, slapped a tailgate on it and it was done. Mechanically they were almost identical to their sedan counterparts. Often it was just a matter of beefing up the suspension to handle the extra weight.

Original concept vehicle for the Pontiac Aztek

Image borrowed from: http://www.autospies.com/news/Recently-Deceased-The-Top-10-Reasons-Why-Pontiac-Failed-44511/


The station wagon had a long run as the family hauler of choice but in the 80’s people started migrating to the minivan. It was a rejection of what mom used to drive. In the 90’s people rejected the minivan and migrated to SUVs. The SUVs had the space families required but most of them were designed for off road ability.

The GM designers saw the future. They knew that less than 10 percent of SUVs sold would ever see use in anything more rugged than a mud puddle. They knew that people were buying them for their carrying capacity and because they looked tough.

Their idea was solid. Build a vehicle that looks like an SUV, drives like a car, hauls cargo like a van and they threw in all wheel drive for good measure. Just like the Fiero, they had all the elements right and then things went horribly wrong.

How did they manage to drop the ball?

They based the Aztek on the Pontiac Montana, a basic low rent minivan. They removed the sliding doors and added a slanted rear hatch. This made it the size and shape of a minivan but with less utility. To distract people from this they made it incredibly ugly. Reviews around the web seem to indicate that it was a bit of a lemon too.

There is a rumour that GM executives were told that they WERE going to have Azteks as their company vehicles and they WERE going to be seen smiling while they drove them.

In the last year of production they sold 25. That is incredible, especially when you consider that GM was throwing incredible rebates at it.

Today, crossover vehicles, which they call these now, are one of the fastest growing markets. At least GM has now produced some crossovers that don’t look like they were designed by multiple designers who hated each other.

The version they put on sale. They seemed to hide a lot of them in the woods

Image borrowed from: http://www.familycar.com/roadtests/pontiacaztek/

I could go on, but I think I am trying your patience with the length of this article. I may have picked on GM a bit. There are a number of GM missteps I have left out, but no manufacturer is without sin.

Ford had the Mustang II, Honda had 4 wheel steering, and Mazda toiled in futility for years with the Wankel Rotary Engine.

Maybe someday I will whine about them in “Things that looked good on paper part 2”. Only time will tell.

BMW Blogger contest? Not for me

I got an email last week letting me know that a BMW dealer in Toronto is running a contest. The winner gets to be their official in house blogger and new media person. On the upside you get a place to live, a new BMW to drive every six months and $65 000 a year. If you are interested you can read up on it at this link:


http://endrasbmw.com/ultimateblogger/about


There are a couple of downsides:

You have to live in Toronto. For my readers who are not in Canada, Toronto is Canada’s largest city, Canada’s largest armpit and a frustrating place to have a car. Toronto city council has been waging a war against the car for years. The weirdest example of this is to save the environment they intentionally desynchronized the traffic lights. How does this help the environment? The closest I can figure is that it may piss people off to the point where they will stop driving. When the lights are synchronized the traffic spends more time moving, people get to where they are going faster and burn less gas. There are a lot of great cars in this city but there aren’t really any great roads to drive them on. Other cities, like Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa have great driving roads very close by. It is such a tease to have a fantastic car without some twists and turns. If all you are going to do is 10 km/hr while sitting 4 feet off of somebody’s bumper, you may as well be driving a Camry.

Driving in Toronto, what a wonderful driving experience!

Picture borrowed from: http://jackandcokewithalime.blogspot.com/2010/05/toronto-traffic-gridlock-makes-idling.html

This is where you can appreciate a quality car, the Sea to Sky Highway near Vancouver.

Picture borrowed from: http://www.sweetspot.ca/SweetLife/gifts_and_occasions/8665/2_hour_drive_sea_to_sky_highway/


I imagine that they want you to be very positive about BMW. Now I get that they are paying the tab but I like the idea of saying whatever comes to mind. BMW has made some incredible vehicles. I drove a 5 series down the autobahn and it was amazing. At 200 km/h it just planted itself on the road and responded like it was an extension of my body. Many of the controls are just in the right place with the right amount of resistance. They feel substantial but are still easy to use.

For more of me gushing about Germany:

http://here-in-my-car.blogspot.com/2010/07/bahn-storming.html

http://here-in-my-car.blogspot.com/2010/08/nurburgring.html

http://here-in-my-car.blogspot.com/2010/10/nurburgring-ii-electric-boogalloo.html


They did not invent the executive sedan market. You see that coming from both sides of the ocean. In England, Jaguar was producing quality vehicles that a bank manager or an executive could afford. They were powerful and luxurious. They made the statement “I have arrived”. In North America, this role was being filled by upper end GM products; Cadillac had the Eldorado and Oldsmobile had the 442. Both of these had power and style but lacked sophistication. This says a lot about North America.

1966 Jag S Type, you can just hear the class and the snobbery

Pic borrowed from: http://pixdaus.com/single.php?id=255564

1972 Olds 442, the executive muscle car

Pic borrowed from: http://autoshow.autotrader.ca/2009/07/27/the-cars-of-the-imperial-palace-las-vegas/1972-oldsmobile-442-2/

1967 Caddy Eldorado, Insert giant land yacht joke here

Pic borrowed from: http://cars.88000.org/24__Cadillac_Eldorado_Fleetwood_Black_1967.htm

BMW spent the 60’s and 70’s quietly building a reputation among enthusiasts. It was like a secret club. They started showing up at race tracks and in the driveways of people in the know.

A 1970’s vintage BMW ready to go racing

Pic borrowed from: http://auto.niot.net/tag/bmw-m1/

Then the 80’s happened. Suddenly greed was good and it was important to show people how much you had spent. Anything from North America was seen as tasteless and horribly tacky. A BMW, anything from a 3 series on up, was a way to show that you were sophisticated, modern and successful. While a lot of the things associated with the yuppie culture are still considered toxic (Brute 33, wine coolers and that poster with the chick with the sunglasses), BMW managed to come out of the 80’s with its reputation intact. This success gave them enough money to plough in to R & D to keep them relevant for the next 20 years.

This poster was issued to every bachelor pad in the 80’s

Pic borrowed from: http://artisticthings.com/patrick-nagel/

But BMW has also produced some clinkers.

The BMW Isetta: It had the door from a fridge, no reverse gear and between 13 and 64 hp depending on the version. You were the crumple zone and your seat was the single cylinder engine. The three wheeled versions were prone to rolling over. It was this car and the Messerschmitt KR200 that inspired the British to create the Mini. They demanded that the Mini have seating for four and real doors. It went on to become one of the most iconic and influential cars of all time.

BMW Isetta with Cary Grant?

Pic borrowed from: http://www.theblogofrecord.com/tag/bmw-isetta/

The BMW 318i: It was a poor man’s BMW. You got a badge, a poorly equipped car and an engine that was almost powerful enough to drag the car around. For the same money you could get yourself a top of the line VW GTI. The 318i was even looked down upon by other BMW owners. At least with the GTI the servicing costs would be reasonable. This is because most of the parts on the GTI were shared with the Golf. There are millions of Golfs around the world, so the parts would be plentiful and relatively cheap. There were also more people trained to work on Golfs than BMWs.

The bargain basement BMW (1997 BMW 318i)

Pic borrowed from: http://vlane.com/review/8840/1997-bmw-3-series-green-1997-bmw-318i

The current BMW 6 series: From the front and the side, this is a beautiful car. The back side looks like it has made a few too many trips to the buffet. The inside looks like it was designed by somebody who just doesn’t like cars. This is so surprising because so many BMW interiors are slick, efficient and cool. This car is more frustrating than most because it is soooooo close to being a perfect car. Oh well, we will just have to worship the Audi S5 instead.

Ok, you don’t have to get it with all the wood trim but the second dashboard hump for the nav. system is hideous.
Pic borrowed from: http://the-grayline.com/2008/08/13/bmw-6-series-sport/bmw-6-series-sport-8/


So, this contest is not for me. I wish all the contestants luck. It sounds like a wonderful opportunity. If you do win, use it as a springboard. Social media is cool, for now. I don’t even do this blog for anybody else but me. I hope others enjoy my random ramblings but it is not part of my master career plan. I don’t think that many dealerships will be able to afford to keep a social media person around for very long. Most dealership owners that I have met are looking for a way to make their money make more money and I don’t think this will. That being said, if they want to toss me the keys to a new BMW every six months ........I may be open to writing a few flattering lines ;) .

Flying Cars, Dumbest Idea Ever

I was walking across the dealership when a fellow salesman called me over to his desk. It was just after the turn of the century and he was going to show me the future. He had a model of the Moller M400 Skycar. He was sure that within five years he was going to be a top flying car salesman and that road transportation was going to be on the way out.

Moller M400, the perfect transportation for a super-villain

Picture borrowed from: http://www.impactlab.net/2010/09/26/history-of-the-flying-car-part-five-the-moller-skycar/

I was absolutely amazed ...... amazed that anybody over the age of five took this idea seriously. For me, this idea ranks in the same category as the water fountains that dispense orange soda. Nice to have? Sure. Practical in any way shape or form? No No No nope not even close!



The idea of the flying car is as old as the car itself. There were predictions that the model T ford was going to be replaced with them.

The ideas for the flying cars seem to fall in to two basic categories and both of them are ridiculous:

First you have planes that are modified to drive on the road.

Look, it’s the future!

Pic borrowed from: http://www.autoevolution.com/news-image/flying-cars-we-ll-never-live-to-see-them-15356-5.html

As a car then as a plane

Pic borrowed from: http://www.notplanejane.com/sensenich.htm

These tend to be awful cars. The idea is that they don’t have to be very good at driving because you are going to cover most of your distance in the air.



The other method is to start with a car and you bolt airplane stuff to it. This tends to make a plane with weird aerodynamic principles.

Live and Let Fly?

Pic borrowed from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1292460.stm

The idea of the flying car tends to look like a good idea when we are sitting in that traffic jam. What we tend to envision is pushing a button and taking to the sky, leaving the miles and miles of slowly moving traffic behind. It is a good dream. It gets even more tempting when you start thinking of the distance between locations in straight lines, rather than following roads. On top of that there are no stop signs or read lights in the sky. How could there possibly be a problem?

Well, very few of the flying car ideas involve technology where you can take off or land vertically. Without that technology, you would have to travel to some sort of airport or take off area, fly to another airport closer to your location, land and then drive to your destination. Any time you save by flying is spent traveling to and from the airports. The more popular the flying car becomes, the busier these airports would be. Why not build more airports? Look at the controversy when they have tried to expand airports like Heathrow in London and Pearson in Toronto. Just imagine the outcry when they tried to build dozens of new airports.

This does not even address the issue of storing the aircraft wings. Some models have the wings folding up and moving with the vehicle on the ground. This adds nothing to the driveability.

Look it is an ugly car and an ugly plane

Pic borrowed from: http://www.inquisitr.com/20269/flying-car-video/

Most of them see the wings being shed and stored somewhere while you are driving. I am picturing some sort of giant parking lot filled with wings.

If they are using vertical takeoff and landing technology the challenge of flying them becomes more complex. I have had some people suggest that computers would take care of the more difficult aspects of flying. The computer in your vehicle could tie in to some sort of master air traffic control computer. This super computer would keep everybody at different altitudes. This is an interesting prospect, especially for anybody who has experienced the wonderful and famous computer “blue screen of death”.

Would you like to restart in safe mode, at 1000 feet?

Pic borrowed from: http://fourquestions.us/personal/fun/bluescreen.php

Turning complete control over to our fine microchiped friends is a daunting prospect. Just think about the countless stories of dolts who have driven in to rivers or other stupid places by doing exactly what their GPS told them to. There would be people in these vehicles to take control if anything goes wrong.



This brings us to the most compelling reason that we should not have flying cars:

Think about the last car trip you took. How many people did you see doing incredibly stupid things? Speeding through residential neighbourhoods, rolling through stop signs and not signalling are all pretty standard stupid things. We also see the ridiculous people applying make-up, reading newspapers and getting changed while driving. These are all things that they do while moving 2 tonnes of glass and steel at deadly speeds on the ground. On the ground you can only hit things that are on the same level as you. Flying allows you the luxury of hitting things above or below you as well. There is also an added bonus. If you are flying and you hit something you will also have very good odds of hitting the ground as well.

So we would have a whole new threat of things falling from the sky.

And this happened without flying cars

Pic borrowed from: http://www.guzer.com/pictures/car-attic.php

I can understand the fantasy of the flying car. Speedy travel that avoids traffic jams, lets us take the most direct route and gives us fantastic views is appealing. It is a Jetsons, everybody in a silver jumpsuit, utopia.

The reality is just too depressing. It has vehicles that do two things, neither of them very well. It brings complexities that we can’t even envision at this point. It brings vehicular carnage beyond belief.

On the ground you exchange insurance information

Pic borrowed from: http://road-safety.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

In the air your relatives fight over your belongings

Pic borrowed from: http://jalopnik.com/5536172/small-plane-crashes-into-suv-during-british-drag-race

The thing that really makes me shake my head is that people are still investing millions of dollars in to this. Nobody can tell at this point how many of the existing flying car ventures are serious and how many are outright scams. But if somebody comes along with the investment opportunity of a lifetime, where you can get in on the ground floor of the next great leap in transportation ........ RUN AWAY!

An open letter to the guys at Top Gear USA

You guys have been taking a lot of flack and it’s not deserved.
You are a brand new show on a basic cable channel. Instead of being compared to Auction Hunters or Parking Wars, your benchmark is a show on the largest broadcaster in ..... the world. Top Gear has had a decent budget and eight years to perfect their craft.

          BBC World Headquarters

            

The History Channel Headquarters



They started with hosts that were fairly well known and they had a clear vision of what they wanted. The cinematography is on par with anything Hollywood has to offer. Their choice of music is sublime; it often has a cheeky tangential connection to what is being discussed. Most importantly they had a clear vision of what they wanted. There was also time for them to develop organically. Segments were expanded or dropped; there was even a host that was replaced. Much of this happened while it was just another car show. There is a lot of freedom when you are not in the spotlight.

Because Top Gear has a large and loyal fan base there was a lot of internet chatter long before your show ever started to film. It was going to be on NBC, it was going to be hosted by Jay Leno or Adam Carolla. Was there going to be a Stig? Would it be the same Stig? The biggest threads seemed to be that there was no way that any copy would be anywhere as good as the original Top Gear. Once people have decided that they don’t like something, even before they have seen it, you have an incredibly tough job convincing them they were wrong.

So far I have seen exactly one episode of Top Gear USA. It is the one with the “moonshine challenge”. I would have watched them all but the History Channel‘s website has been a little wonky and there are not any channels carrying it in Canada.

I don’t really know the hosts yet. There is the Kevin Smith looking guy, who is apparently from the south, the guy from New Jersey who sounds vaguely like Joe Pesci and the drifting guy. It will take a while to learn their personalities. We saw a flash of potential when they were reviewing the new Mustang performance package. One of them loved it and the other was very critical of it. This was very reminiscent of the Top gear we know and love. Do more of this. The audience is afraid that you will be too scared to give an honest appraisal of a car unlike our British friends.

Who are these guys?

 I was disappointed with the cheap car challenge. The challenges are some of my favourite parts of Top Gear. You missed a pivotal part of the traditional Top Gear Challenges. The guys were sent out to buy cars for $ 1000 but, unlike the British version, they were not given the theme. We are used to the hosts being told they are going to drive to a certain location or prove a certain point. From what the audience was shown, the guys were not told what the objective was until they had purchased the cars. This made it a little less interesting as there was less justification for their choices. It was also a little weird that while we are still trying to figure out who is who, two of the hosts were wearing plaid shirts, unless this is the Top Gear USA uniform.

Somebody forgot their checked shirt

It was a little odd that there seemed to be no reference to the original Top Gear show. There were things that a Top Gear fan would recognise but things like the Stig may be a little odd for somebody who is new to the brand. The studio audience didn’t seem to know what to make of the hosts bickering. Maybe there should be some sort of warm up act to draw the audience in.

There are a couple of changes that could make a world of difference:

I think your best value for money and time would be to introduce the Top Gear Cool Wall. It is so cheap to do. All you need is a wall segmented in to “Seriously Un Cool”, “Un Cool”, “Cool”, ”Sub Zero” and some pictures of cars. The audience learns a lot about the hosts as they debate where the cars should sit.

Very entertaining, good value for money

Expand the news segment. It is a great opportunity for the hosts to debate and inject some humour in to the show.

Reference the British show. It would help to explain things like the Stig, well as much as he can be explained.

I want to like this show. I like the idea of seeing more cars that are applicable to my world. We don’t see many Peugeots or Austin Marinas here in North America. The original Top Gear is known for dropping pianos on Austin Marinas. I would like to see the USA boys doing something similar with the North American equivalent, the K-car.

Marina about to be crushed by a piano

     

         










One Klassy K-car



 It is unfair that you are being compared to the original Top Gear. In reality it should be compared to the almost unwatchable Motorweek. No offence to the men and women who made this show but it is awful. Everything on Motorweek is presented in the most scripted and wooden way. They have also never reviewed a car that they didn’t love. It can be hard. All of these shows walk a fine line. If they are too critical the manufacturers might not let them play with their toys. If they are not critical enough their opinion is worthless.


In short, keep up the good work guys. I don’t think you have the recipe exactly right yet. You have all the components. As you work together you will get more comfortable, less of the show will have to be scripted and the more natural it will feel. Keep working the mix and, if they give you enough time, you’ll figure it out.