GM in Europe

First things first, I am now working for a Renault dealership. Since it could affect my bias, consider yourselves warned.

A couple of decades ago, GM had Daewoo, Opel/Vauxhall and Saab dealerships across Europe. It made very good sense, since Daewoo was a cheap Korean manufacturer, Opel a mid range German car company and Saab was a premium Scandinavian nameplate.

Then, out of the blue, GM decided to rebadge Daewoo as Chevrolet. The company's lineup had improved, and it was considered easier to rename the company than changing people's minds that Daewoo had improved. And, since we had Chevrolet, we Catalans and most Europeans could buy the great  Camaro and the not so great HHR.

The decision had an undesired side effect. Who could have guessed Chevrolet would steal sales from Opel/Vauxhall? Pretty much everybody, but hey, no one thought about it at GM. So after millions spent to sell Daewoo in the first place and some more cash to rename the company as Chevrolet, GM spent some more money killing Chevrolet in Europe.

I have already written about Saab's death by GM before. It was a mistake, and a rather big one. Especially when you consider what goes next.

Just a few weeks ago, GM decided to sell Opel/Vauxhall to the PSA group (Peugeot an Citroën) Opel had been losing money for a few years in a row, and it was better to sell it than killing it.

Until you realize, that is, that GM has managed to get rid of all of its European presence. Because, Cadillac, you know, barely exists here. I have no doubt that, one by one, all these decisions made some sense. But there is a lack of strategy here. No long term plan. GM, you have a problem here. The European Union has roughly 500 million people in it. More than the USA, Canada and Mexico combined.

I think GM has forgotten it is a car company. Unless they rethink themselves, the company is doomed. 

Buying tips. A reasonable guide to get yourself a car.

Ok, so you are shopping for a car and need some advice. Here there are some FAQ's and a guideline. Let's start for the basics.

Should I buy brand-new or second hand?

It depends on your budget, of course, but you can get yourself an econobox for eight grand or so. And, surprisingly, a Seat Mii, for example, is a rather decent car. Sure, it ain't fast, but you get what you essentially need: air conditioning, a stereo, room for four and some luggage. It's also safe if you compare it with many second hand cars that won't have as many airbags, for example. Not to mention previous crashes.

There are some other reasons to buy brand new. Reliability, for instance. And no inspections for the first four years. If you really need your car to go to work, better bet on something that, at least, should work.

Second hand market is tough, but you could find yourself a bargain, especially with a petrol engine. Come to that, here's the second question

Should I buy diesel, petrol or hybrid?

If you are the kind of person who trades in the old car and gets a new one every three or four years, better get a diesel, even if you don't drive much. Devaluation is the key here, while both diesel and petrol cars lose value, the price gap between the two might double the difference when new.

A diesel is also recommended if you do lots of road or highway driving. Like, ten thousand miles a year is enough for you to compensate. If you drive a lot, but mostly around town and you get into traffic jams often, then a hybrid is a better option. You will get a great fuel economy and a very quiet interior. However, if you want a hybrid, you better like Toyota or Lexus. No other car maker has made a decent hybrid yet.

I still want a petrol car, is there anything I should know?

Yes. There are three or four different types of petrol engines. Turbo, supercharged, turbo AND supercharged and naturally aspired engines. Without going too technical, anything with a turbo will have a great fuel economy in good conditions, but a really, really poor fuel economy when pushed. That means if you like driving fast, any engine will drink a lot, but a turbo will skyrocket. You will be surprised how much gas a small turbo engine is able to use. Even if you don't drive fast, but must face a fair uphill when coming back home, that will put the turbo at work and will cost you money. Naturally aspired engines, on the other hand, may not be able to give you the torque of a turbo, but it will be less thirsty when floored. Supercharged engines will have torque, but poor fuel economy.  

Should I buy a minivan or a SUV?

A minivan will tell the world you have common sense, it is more practical and will have a better fuel economy. But minivans are dead ugly, and there is no way around that.  A SUV is more badass, it will have enough room for what you will really do and gives you a more alpha image. But, unless you have four kids and haul them around on a daily basis, go and get yourself a hatchback, because that is what you really need.

I have half a million bucks to spend on a car, should I buy a Bentley or a Rolls Royce?

I have a winged horse with a single horn in the forehead. And I call him Lucy, because why not. And if you really have half a million to spend on a car, let me tell you something. You are poor, you should have a million and get yourself a Bentley AND a Rolls Royce, use them both and then you will have all the info you need for your next car. Because I have yet to figure out if I prefer the Ghost or the Mulsanne. 

New kid in town

So, we got a new baby around. In an unprecedented speed between releases (the Aventador is still a rather new model in their line-up), Lamborghini has presented the Huracán, the new sort-of base model.

Designed to replace the Gallardo, the Huracán pretty much checks all the boxes. It's a V10, it's more powerful, faster and meaner than its predecessor.

I have never been a fan of the Gallardo. It has never given me the sensations old Lambos used give me. Like, this is what you get when your ambition exceeds your abilities. When you grab your dreams and put them in car form. When you do things because you want to, not because you have to. Old Lambos were raw dreams, with all their flaws, but true to themselves. The Gallardo was much better at being a car than at being a raging bull.

The Huracán is also a rather civilized car when it comes to driving. Four wheel drive and witchcraft electronics ensure pleasure, and not drama, inside the cockpit. This is a modern requirement since having the wealth to own a supercar doesn't automatically give you the skills to tame such a beast. So, as standard, you get a tamed beast to begin with.

What I like about the Huracán, of course, is not its eagerness to be driven by anyone with lots of money. What I do like about it is the styling. They've nailed it. It looks like a futuristic batmobile, like Darth Vader's own car. The meanest, coolest, most badass thing on the road. Pure art in metal form. And, because the outside is so authentic, all the other features make sense. Like the V10 engine, for example. A V10 is a rather weird cylinder configuration, a bit out natural balance, not offering much more in performance than a V8 and way less refinement (and power) than a V12. A V10 is an odd choice, so odd, only just a few cars have used it this century. However, with the only exception of the Gallardo, every V10 car since 2000 has been amazing.  

The only thing that could make me stop dreaming for a Lamborghini is another Lamborghini. I think I'm in love again.

Buying tips: petrol or Diesel?

Europe went Diesel-crazy in the late 90's. Four cylinder, turbocharged, two litre engines became the standard choice for most of us. Those engines produced around a hundred horsepower, but they felt much, much more powerful. We "discovered" torque.

Torque is what makes you feel an engine is powerful, because it's what you can find in the middle of the rpm range. Those early Diesel engines had lots of it, specially compared with the naturally aspired 1.6 most people were used to. Like twice as much.

Many people still buy Diesels today because they think they will last forever, consume no fuel whatsoever while delivering all the torque one can dream of. The truth, however, is quite different.

Modern Diesels are über-complicated engines. This means there are a lot of bits that can go wrong at any given moment. So, while they can still work for ages, they will need to be fixed on the way there. Fuel economy hasn't improved all that much for the last ten years for Diesel engines, while there has been a huge improvement for petrol engines on the meantime. Finally, modern Diesels still earn the torque trophy, but modern turbocharged Ottos aren't as weak as they used to be.

All things considered, is it still worth it to spend a couple of grands more to get the Diesel engine? Well, the answer depends on the car you are looking for, but a few general rules can help.

Rule #1: Do you use your car on a daily basis? Like commuting to work, school runs, shopping, etc? If the answer is yes, go for the Diesel. If the answer is no, go to the next rule.

Rule #2: Are you planning to sell it within the next 2 to 8 years? If the answer is yes, go for the Diesel, resale value will more than double the extra money you paid in the first place. Answer is no, follow the next rule

Rule #3: Do you tow or use all of your car's cargo? If the answer is yes, again, go for the Diesel. You need that torque, and if you were to buy a turbocharged petrol engine, you must have in mind that fuel consumption skyrockets under heavy loads.

Rule #4: Are you young? This is the trickiest rule. If you are young (and by that, I mean you have yet to settle down) you are probably better off with a diesel. Once you get married, have kids, and so on, your life will be rather predictable. However, if you are young enough, you might see yourself dating some who lives 50 miles away, while your new job is 40 miles away... in the opposite direction. Chances are you'll change your significant other, your job, you'll move, etc. This means you'll need your car as a tool to match your life bits.

Saab is gone

We live in a Saab-less world, and it makes mi sad. Saab has never been my favourite car maker, but it has been one of the most interesting ones for decades. A Saab was my second choice when I bought my first BMW.

It's the last victim of the current crisis and GM, that has never understood those Scandinavian folks.

Saab workers used to have a passion for excellence that made all but impossible joining other  mainstream car builders for shared projects. And for good reason: Saab has never been mainstream, no matter how popular have some of their models been.

Unwisely, GM never understood that passion for excellence and high quality and wanted Saab to stop that. They never realized they had a unique chance to improve their engineering and manufacturing. Cadillac could share Saab developments and sell a good product in USA and Canada, while selling the same car (albeit with a different style and maybe different suspension set-ups) in Europe as a Saab.

GM has thought that marketing is the key to sell cars. Well, it's true that good marketing will make you sell one car, but once you got it, it doesn't matter how fabulous and marvellous they tell you it is: If it's crap, no marketing is able to change your mind. And you know a car is crap because you can read about it, you can test it, you can challenge it. There is no way for a piece of junk to perform well in any survey.

I put the blame on GM for a several reasons: Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Hummer. Apparently, GM is having a great time this century killing nameplates. Saab is just another victim of a company that has gone nuts. And it's a pity, because Saab wasn't just another car maker.

Renting a car in Catalonia

Enjoy freedom? Need some self transport around the country? A common option is car renting. We Catalans have some particularities that maybe you should know before you rent a car.

Most cars you'll find at a reasonable price fall into the compact or subcompact category. Although we all like full size sedans, smaller cars rule. Parking lots are scarce, parking spots are small, streets are narrow and corners are tight. If it's big enough to fit everybody in, look no further.

Another particularity is manual shifting. Automated cars are rare, and depending on the price target, even impossible to find. Get used to clutch shifting to prevent embarrassing stalling. It has happened to everybody, but it's only fun when it happens to someone else.

Rental cars are underpowered to prevent you from racing style driving. When I say underpowered, I mean anaemic. Prepare to drive a 1.4 litre engine with less than 100 hp. It barely moves. However, there is something  good about it: fuel economy.

Gas is sold in litres, not gallons, in Catalonia and most of Europe. A litre of regular gas is about 1.50€, that means a gallon is 5.69€, or more than 7 USD at current exchange rate. Yup, more than seven bucks a gallon. Consider gas costs before you plan your routes.

Speed limits, distances and so on are in kilometres, not miles. But so are speedometers, so just remember that when you see Barcelona 121 you are much closer than what you think.

Finally, if you get caught speeding, you don't have many chances to escape from the bill. You may get arrested by our local police (Mossos d'Esquadra) or the bill will be sent to the rental company, that will charge it to you. 

An overview of a weak player: PSA, part I

Figures from last year car sales are horrid. I haven't seen any Catalan figures as of yet, but for the whole Spanish market have been so wrong, they've come back to 1993. And for those who can't remember, Spain suffered from a real state crisis back then.

Fortunately, other markets in Europe were not that bad. The German market, for instance, is quite healthy. Not strong, but healthy. I haven't heard anything about Italy or Greece, but I guess their situation is more similar to Spain than it is to Germany. France, on the other hand, has just lost its AAA status, meaning financial problems in the future. It might not be important for baker shops and calvados sales, but for the car industry, that relies a lot on financial structures to sell their vehicles, it may have a deep effect.

This rather long economic introduction comes handy to understand the situation of a major car company here in Europe: the PSA group, which basically means Citroën and Peugeot. Unlike many other carmakers, that have been joining to create huge industrial groups, PSA has just dealt with other manufacturers for specific projects. They created a 3.0 V6 petrol engine with Renault years ago. And the C1/107/Aygo with Toyota so they could be in the small car market. And they joined Mitsubishi to grab their share of the SUV market. Oh, and also joined BMW for their 1.6 litre petrol engine. And Ford for their diesel engines. And Fiat/Lancia for their people carrier. So, what do they do on their own? Front wheel drive platforms. Which is like a restaurant that says they are great at salads. No complaints about that, but it doesn't sound tempting, does it?

So, there is this small group that has refused to grow, and as a result of that, exports outside Europe are virtually non-existent.  And, as we have seen before, sales in Europe are far from great. What the PSA group needs now, more than ever, is a great success. A new car that hits the market like an H-bomb. And guess what? the last car that managed to do so is called the Nissan Qashqai. And it's Japanese. Except for one tiny little detail: it's got French engines. By Renault, obviously.

The last major success from PSA was the Peugeot 206 CC. About ten years ago, they set up the standard for small, coupe-cabriolet cars. Since then, they've sold the same old, lame cars anyone could build and sell. Renault created the Scénic before Citroën created the Picasso. Everybody has their own SUV except for PSA group. Now that Fiat has bought Chrysler, Renault is enjoying a great sex life with Nissan, and all the other mainstream European companies are under the Volkswagen AG or GM umbrella, PSA looks weak. 

German cars vs American cars

If I had to choose between a BMW X5 and a Jeep Grand Cherokee today, I would go for the BMW straight away. However, if I had to choose between a 7 year old second hand X5 and a 7 year old second hand Grand Cherokee, I would have no doubt at all: I'd rather get the Jeep.

At first, the previous statement shocked me as it seemed to be a paradox. However, I do believe now there is no paradox at all. Let's just look at both vehicles. An X5 is a SUV, great on the road, but with no real off-road abilities. The Jeep, on the other hand, is an off-roader that can handle some tarmac. The BMW pretends to have the ultimate engineering, while the Jeep pretends to be built to last forever. That's why Jeeps age well and BMW's don't. It's in their spirit.

If you are a businessman and you are driving over 50k miles a year, like flooring your car in the autobahn and ask for refinement, luxury and sport manners, read no further: go and get yourself a BMW. It will serve you well. You'll be shocked by its chassis, built quality, quietness at high speeds and comfort. A brand new BMW is as good as a car can be. However, if you want an SUV to be your daily driver for a few years and then you want it to go off-road while you use another car as a daily driver, skip the BMW option and get yourself a Jeep. It will keep its qualities for a long time, making it a great vehicle throughout its life. After all, where is the point in an ultimate driving machine that is no longer the ultimate driving machine?

Consumer advice: buying a French car.

If there has ever been a good time to buy a French car, this is it. Next month we Catalans will celebrate St. John's day, meaning we will use some firecrackers and have some bon fires.

St. John's eve, known here as the shortest night of the year, is the summer equivalent of New Year's eve. We are supposed to have a hell of a party, from dusk until dawn, and burn all those bad memories from the past. That's were French cars come in handy. It doesn't matter if it's a Renault, Peugeot or Citroën, the very best thing you can do with it is set it up on fire. If you buy your French car today, you'll be a satisfied ex-owner next month.

A one year race

Motorsport at its finest is boring. I am talking about F1, but it's the same story in the World Rally Championship. For different reasons, a TV show of both of them is boring. I've had an idea, however that will make things far more interesting.

These days there is no close relationship between race cars and road cars. It doesn't matter how reliable a Citroën DS3 WRC is, production cars may fall apart anyway. Race cars are so heavily modified no one can rely on them to know about the road ones. And here is where my idea comes in.

I would make a race including all manufacturers and their best selling cars, in their best selling specs, in an oval circuit. Unlike Le Mans, that lasts only 24 hours, this race should last a whole year. The winner would be the car that has covered more miles.

At 100mph, you'll be 2400 miles away in just one day, 72000 in a month and 864000 in a year. If a car can run a million miles in just one year, that would prove performance, reliability and durability in just one test. It would be dead boring, but at least it would give some consumer advice.

Cadillac sighting, episode II a black BLS.

I saw what appeared to be a BLS last friday. I really can't tell because I was driving myself and didn't have the time to read the badge.

The BLS is probably the biggest failure Cadillac has had in Europe for the last ten years. Based on the Saab 93, it had everything to be a top seller. A well known brand, a fine product, diesel engines. However, it never became popular.

I think it was the style, a diminished version of the CTS, that really plagued the car. It never had personality of its own, and frankly, the CTS might be many things, but not beautiful. GM tried to improve sales by offering a station wagon derivative, but that was a bigger failure. The BSL saloon wasn't beautiful, but the BLS station wagon was dead ugly. No sense of proportions, no verve, no passion. Just boxy, as all Cadillacs these days.

GM dropped the small caddy a few years ago, when they got rid of Saab. Surprisingly, Saab seems to be fine these days, and GM hasn't given any good news for the last two years.

The 2011 F1 Championship

Once again, millions of people have been fooled by the same old story. We were told that overtaking manoeuvres would be commonplace this year. That the new rules would make races interesting, fun, exciting. None of this has happened. There has been some overtaking, but the race itself has been as fun as a train race.

My solution includes missiles, cars on fire and naked women, but everybody with common sense tells me that it wouldn't work, that it's some kind of wet day-dream. Ok, I admit it, but I also have some properly good ideas. Here they are:

I would change the engine rules altogether. Carmakers don't sell small V8 engines, so I would let everybody use the engine they want. Therefore, we could see a turbocharged in-line four from Renault vs a naturally aspired Ferrari V12. And it would be fine, because Renault sells small turbocharged engines and Ferrari sells big V12's. Engines should last just one weekend, as the gearbox. I know this would let engineers get well over 1500hp, but that's exactly the idea. With no traction control, these monsters would be harder to drive, and pilots would have a hell of a job just trying not to crash. As today, no refuelling allowed, so the more powerful the engine, the more gas in the tank, the slower the car at the beginning, but also the faster at the end of the race.

The other item that should be changed is tires. There should be at least, four tire manufacturers involved, and the best four teams from last season couldn't share tire manufacturer. This would make tire manufacturers and F1 teams work together, trying to make the best out of both of them.

Finally, scoring should go as follows: 10 points for the winner, 7 for the second, 6 for the third, and so on. Pole and fastest lap get another extra point. This would make top pilots go faster when they ruin their race, having something to fight for when they are in the middle of nowhere.

A reason not to buy the best car in the world

In my last post, I wrote that the best car money can buy is called Porsche Panamera Turbo. Hence, you would expect, that's the one I'd buy if I could. But the answer is no, I probably wouldn't. I'd get a Maserati Quattroporte.

I have my reasons, and I think I shall explain them. To begin with, we must be aware that we are talking about two-hundred-grand-a-piece cars. If you add some extras, that is, and you will, because there are some fancy ones, and some extras that should be standard.

I would respect anyone that spends two hundred thousand dollars on a car and expects perfection. For them, Porsche created the Panamera Turbo. However, perfection isn't everything. Perfection is sometimes boring, and here there is the girl example.

Two guys meet after a five year hiatus, and they talk about their fiancées. One guy says his is beautiful, has a college degree and good manners. He shows a picture of her and she is a Charlize Theron look-a-like. The other guy just says: mine is younger and has bigger boobs. He also shows a picture of her and she looks like a porn star.

Everybody agrees that the first guy made the right choice, but that the other one is probably having more fun. And more troubles, but no one cares about that.

It's the same story with the Panamera and the Quattroporte. I know the Quattroporte will get to 170 mph once, and then breakdown in some weird nuclear meltdown style that defies the laws of physics. But its louder, has a great style and all the pantomime a supercar needs. I don't care about reliability, I care about fun, sheer excitement, passion. So, given the choice, I would let my bank account take care about its flaws whenever they show up and spend my money on the Quattroporte.

The best car in the world

One of the most frequently asked question is which is the best car in the world. The main problem begins when we realize it's hard to tell why a car is better than another car, especially if both of them are good. I assume that the best car in the world has no major flaws, like unreliability, understeer or weird ergonomics that only fit to the designer's body. However, this just isn't enough so I've decided to make my own theory. I call it the 3G boxes for the perfect car.

There are three different categories the so-called best car in the world must excel, and all three of them have the G in their names, hence the 3G theory.

The first G stands for g-forces. The best car in the world is able to go to a track and race properly. Note that I didn't say it has to be a tarmac circuit. It can be any kind of racing facilities, but the car must be a winner's choice. So, whether it is a mud track or a GP circuit, the best car in the world is able to get there and humiliate its rivals.

The second G stands for GT. A GT is a car you can use on a daily basis, because it has the comfort features you need to live with it. This also means it must be reliable and that you can service it with no major difficulties.

The third and last G stands for g-strings. The best car in the world shows off. It attracts women and car enthusiasts alike. This means it has properly designed looks, personality -- if a car can have such a thing -- and charm.

Now that we know what we are looking for in the best car in the world, we can think about a few contenders. This is my top 3 and why I've chosen them against their competition.

• Bronze medal: Nissan GT-R. Probably one of the most ignored supercars, it's got everything in the 3G list. Loud, fast, and hi-tech, it only lacks a name (read, it isn't called Porsche) to be on the top
• Silver medal: Porsche Cayenne Turbo. The only mud-ready supercar in the world is so special it made it to second place.
• Gold medal: Porsche Panamera Turbo. Ferrari-like performance, S-Klasse confort, GT-R-track ready. It's huge, but agile. It's elegant, but sporty. And if you think ménage-a-trois are for the poor ones, you can bring three people with you to perform a decadent, albeit fun, orgy.

A love affaire

I will admit it right away, I am in love with a baby. She's more than beautiful, she's gorgeous. She's got the looks, the passion, the verve, she's got everything to blow up my mind. She's going to be the muse in my wildest fantasies, she's going to star my wettest dreams. I know she's dangerous, that she will take away many men's hearts and only a few lucky ones will ever get inside her.

She's called Aventador, she's Lamborghini's last baby child. She's everything a Lambo should be. Loud, dangerous, useless, powerful, beautiful, mad, and most of all, wild. She is exactly what the Countach would be if it were still alive.

There were two cars that really got me in the 1980's, the Ferrari 288 GTO and the Lamborghini Countach Quattrovalvole. Ferrari thought the 288 GTO was too beautiful and replaced it with the ugly F40. Yes, I've just said the F40 is ugly, and F50 is also ugly, and so is the Enzo. Ferrari hasn't built any beautiful car since 1984, it's just that nobody has realised it but me.

Lambo, on the other hand, hasn't had so many errors. They haven't had many chances anyway, but the Diablo was a badass looking car, and that's more than enough for me. And so it was the Murcielago. Maybe the Gallardo doesn't look quite as good as it should, but that's the only exception. And now our lovely bat (read Murcielago) has flown away and the Aventador has come along. I admit the Sesto Elemento concept did have better looks, but when it comes to road legal cars, the Aventador is as good as a car can be.

There is just one that may disappoint you, as it will disappoint many others. There are quite a few more exotic cars out there. The Bugatti Veyron, for example, is more expensive, more powerful, has a higher top speed... everything. Probably there are Pagani Zondas with more power too. But I don't care the slightest bit. None of them is the last of their breed. None of them has a heritage to look for. When it comes to ancestors, only the Porsche 911 has a past like the Aventador. While I respect, and love, the 911, when it comes to pure passion my heart says Lambo.

A nice mess in the car industry, the Audi A5 Sportback

A few years back, Audi decided it was time for a brand new entry luxury sedan. Named A4 for the third time, it was planned the sedan should have a baby child in coupe and cabriolet forms. The A5 was born.

We were told the A5 uses a shortened version of the A4 platform. However, Audi decided the A5 coupe was not enough and released the A5 Sportback, a 5 door version of the 3 door coupe. We were told the A5 Sportback uses a lengthened version of the A5 platform. Whether if that means it uses the same platform underneath the A4 or not, is still unknown.

Then there is pricing. The A5 coupe is more expensive than an equivalent A4, less expensive than the A5 cabrio and more expensive than the A5 Sportback. The Sportback is more expensive than the equivalent A4 sedan. There seems to be a little logic in it: the less practical it is, the more they charge you for it. Except for the A4 Avant, which is more practical than the sedan and more expensive.

This is what I think happened with all this mess in A4, A5, A5 Sportback: Audi had in mind that the A5 Sportback should be the A4 sedan, but they felt it was a little bit too risky, not enough mainstream. Then, they decided to use this crazy 4 door sedan coupe fashion the Mercedes CLS started to fix the idea. There would be a conventional A4, and the brilliant idea was released as the A5 Sportback.

So, the Audi A5 Sportback is the car Audi never dared to call A4 and now they charge you a 2 grand premium for it. No wonder why nobody is buying it.

Cadillac sighting, episode one, a 2009 or 2010 black CTS

I saw a Cadillac last Friday, and I feel like I want to track down how many of these babies I see. I do already know they are extremely rare in Catalonia, especially outside Barcelona and suburbs, but I think it's worth checking.

If you ask anyone here what do they know about Cadillac, you'll get the right answer "American luxury car". Everybody knows Cadillac here, but no one seems to buy them. That's why I think GM has been absolutely wrong in Europe for the last twenty years or more.

Let's start with the model range. CTS and STS are quite good, but they lack diesel engines. The SRX has seen some mild success within soccer players, although it also lacks diesel engines. Finally, the top of the range Escalade is useless in our roads. It isn't fast, it doesn't handle, it can't go offroad, it doesn't fit in any car park. It doesn't even look good, or badass, or stylish.

Carmakers usually build their top of the range models not to sell them. Think of them like ads. You get into a showroom, and there is this spectacular car with lots of features and witchcraft engineering. That's the one you would like to buy, but you buy the car you need or can afford instead. That flagship was there to show you how powerful the company is, to make you think the car you are actually buying is just the first step. They give you something to dream about. Of course, they sell them from time to time, but the core business is on more mundane cars.

GM should stop importing the Escalade. This is step one. Step two is build some proper diesel engines. How come GM, the biggest car manufacturer until 2009, has never had diesel engines of their own? Opels and Vauxhalls use Fiat diesel engines. So did Saab when it was under the GM umbrella. No wonder why Toyota is #1 today. They have the guts to develop their own engines. Even a small company like Infiniti has diesel engines. And for good reason: in Europe, three out of four cars sold have a diesel engine as the main power source. If GM wants to get back to the top, diesel engines are a must.

The Lada Niva, a communist car on sale today

People say these days that no brand new car is rubbish. I admit that too, but while many people ignore the Lada Niva is still on sale, I don't.

Born in 1977, the Lada Niva (aka Autovaz Niva and Vaz Niva) was a little amazing offroader of its time. It brought car features like unibody architecture, front independent suspension and coil suspensions to the off road market. Using Fiat technology and some original Russian engineering, communists finally made a good car people could own.

34 years in the car industry is a lot of time. Almost every car on sale today has been redesigned 5 times or so since 1977. However, the Lada Niva stays on the same roots. Anaemic power, disgusting looks and horrible ergonomics were there when the car was released, and no one has cared to fix anything in this period. In fact, the Lada Niva has experienced less evolution than the Mercedes-Benz G-Klasse or the Land Rover Defender, probably the eldest cars in our roads (apart from Morgans).

Are Nivas useless? no, of course not. If you are a hardcore offroader and you are on a budget, a second hand Niva can be found for less than two grand. Or maybe you are into guns, and fancy a new target. Or you've always wondered how long does it take for a car to sink. Get a stopwatch and a Niva. Sure, different cars will have different sinking times, but you'll get the idea. Personally, I would like to grab four crash dummies, put them in a Niva and perform a crash test at 85 miles an hour. It would be scientific, wouldn't it?

A car worth testing, the LF-A

Lexus needed almost ten years to give birth to the LF-A, their first supercar. Their baby child is probably one of the most interesting cars to be tested out there. And for some good reasons.

To begin with, the LF-A is expensive, even by supercar standards. It's 50% more than an equivalent Ferrari or Lamborghini, and twice as much as a decent Porsche. At this point, supercar buyers leave the showroom and look for something truly exotic and save some money. Sure, Lexus has some reasons to charge you so much for it, but none of them meets common sense.

However, the LF-A has a unique-ness around it. Ferrari did already exist when I was born. So did Lambo and Porsche. They've faced hard times, but today it doesn't seem likely they will disappear anytime soon. You've got a lifetime to test a Ferrari. But no one guarantees you'll get a chance to test LF-A's successor, because it may not exist in the first place. It might very well be a one of a kind, a little bit like the Honda NSX. Yes, the company will promise you there will be a second round, but don't bet your money on that. If you ever have the chance to grab your hands in a LF-A, go for it or maybe you'll regret it.

If it sells properly -- and I don't think it will -- Lexus might think a second iteration at the supercar market is worth the effort. So, maybe there will be a second generation LF-A, and a third. If they manage to make it to the third generation, chances are they will keep building supercars forever. And this would make the LF-A even more special, it would become Genesis. The first of the breed. A myth. Maybe you don't want to drive an LF-A, but driving a myth is a different story.

The electric car, part III

I started this series about the electric car asking myself if Prime Minister Zapatero was right when he decided to spend taxpayer's money on the electric car. So far, I've concluded that electric cars aren't ready yet and that when they do, some advantages we see now will be long gone. Finally, I take a look at other examples of government spending to see if we are going to drive electric cars in the future.

My first example comes from Japan. After WWII, Japan policy makers decided that the aircraft industry was the key to make the country go forward into the XXth century. Money was invested to create business and companies and build aeroplanes. On the other hand, car makers didn't get any money whatsoever. Today, Toyota, a Japanese manufacturer, is the #1 automaker. Honda builds more engines than any other company. Japanese cars are worldwide known for their reliability, design and quality. But there isn't any aircraft from Japan. Boeing is American and Airbus is European. All the money was wasted.

My second example comes from the Middle Eeast. In the 1980's, western countries told oil producers in the Middle East to invest the money they got from oil in solar technology. It was a brilliant idea. We buy your energy today, and we'll buy your tech in the future. It was so good, that some governments bought it. Solar power plants were built in the middle of deserts, where there is sunlight a plenty. Oil from the middle east is still bought today, but those power plants are abandoned. They just didn't work. Maybe it was too early for such a complicated technology, maybe sandstorms ruin efficiency rates. If you buy a solar panel today, it's likely to come from China, probably with Chinese tech. Nothing to do with the Middle East.

At this point, I assume that spending money from taxpayers on a particular topic doesn't guarantee results. Sure, there are examples out there where government spending has been useful. But my point is that we shouldn't consider that spending as an investment, but as a bet. Unfortunately for Spaniards, Mr. Zapatero is wrong again.