Ford B-MAX

The Ford B-MAX is a good-looking car I think, with an ingenious system for the doors. I think the inclusion of the B pillars in the doors is a great idea, and something I think more cars should have, for easier access
For those of you who may not know, the B-MAX has no B pillar,  and  it is instead incorporated into the drivers/passenger front doors and sliding rear doors.

"Easy-access" door system.

This is an idea that I'm surprised hasn't caught on, because (As I said before) it is a great idea, and it allows much easier access into the front and back, without the fear from drivers of their kids bashing the back doors when they're getting in and out. I was amazed at how easily the back doors slid, as they can be a bit awkward to open, and then how easy it was to close them again. No more awkward twisting around: Ford has had the insight to put handles on the integrated B-pillars. The front seatbelts have been subtly included into the backs of the front seats ( since there is no pillar to mount them on) with the elegance of a BMW cabrio. Another thing that surprised me was the sheer amount of space inside. My dad could put the front seat right back, and I would still have plenty room in the back. (I'm 6")

New car, Dated interior.

Although there were a lot of good things about the car, there was a couple of little niggles that I spotted. the first one was the positioning of the rear window switches. In a normal car, they're in the door armrests or by the inner door-releases. In the B-MAX they're situated on the door, but they're so far forward that a front seat passenger would have an  easier time reaching them. It also has large plastic wings (I can't really describe them better) by the rear seats , to stop people falling out, I think. They're in just the right place for when you want to sleep in the back seat, but they stick out fairly far,  which means that you have to get into the car and move backwards to sit in the seat. The final t=niggle is the radio. It looks so old fashioned, with buttons and a (non-touch) screen. I think this is something that Ford really needs to improve, as it makes their cars look dated, even the brand-new ones (I can't talk for some of the more upmarket cars, but I assume they're the same)

To summarise then, the B-MAX is a great car, and it has an ingenious door situation and tons of space inside, but is let down by a few small things, things that you'd probably get used to while using the car. Another shorter Post for you lot today, and I apologise for the lack of posts at the weekend, I was on the boat and on the beach.

Discovery

I assume you know of the Land Rover Discovery? One of the best selling 4X4s, bought by everyone from farmers to inner-city dwellers who don't want a Range Rover. It has gone through several bodystyles, the most recent ones being very minor changes, and a brand-new one has just been announced. I saw it in TopGear magazine earlier today, and I was surprised to say the least.

First of all, the radical new design. It is taller than it is wide, with a (quite obvious) step at the windowline, the sweeping C-pillars (I think they're the C-pillars) and the fact that it gets skinnier at the boot. These all contribute to a horrid looking car, in my opinion. Whilst it looks meh alright from the 3/4 view, seeing it from any other angle just makes it look weird. The rear wheelarches stick out wider than the rest of the body at the back, and it's obvious how LR have tried, unsuccessfully, to subtly copy some of the RRs features (Lights, crease along the side and massive wheels (22in!)) There is also the pointless step up to the LR badge where the number plate goes, which makes the car look uneven (I have OCD, can you tell?) and I don't like the features that make the car look taller, like the vertical air intakes, Tailpipes and skininess. 

New Disco. Ugly car, good tech.

Although the new Disco is utterly terrible, it does have some redeeming features. Take the clever windows and glass roof: They can tint on demand, and the roof can show a pretty pattern. The seat-mounted screens are a cool feature too, along with the HUD (Head-Up-Display). JLR have recently previewed some new tech to do with the HUDs in their SUVs. It has cameras under the engine and bumper, which allow the car to see what is going on underneath it, and it can project these images up to the HUD, which then makes the driver able to look through the bonnet and engine block, to see exactly what's under his(or her) car: the wheel position, where rocks and ruts are, the lot. 

Overall then, a terrible SUV, with some good features that I would like to see on a lot of other cars in the near future. As I read in TG magazine, someone at JLR said that these next 15 years will see cars advance like we've never seen them do before. Personally, I sincerely hope this is true, as I think some of thee new innovations are amazing. It leaves me sitting here, at 5 to 10 wondering what cars will be like in 20 years time, when I think this tech will be available in the mass market. Anyways, leave me a comment saying what you think, and what I should look at next time.

Car quality

Bit of a tedious link for the title here, but one I feel is applicable nonetheless. Car quality these days has gone uphill, vastly. With more of the cheaper brands wanting to make themselves seem more upmarket, and the upmarket brands making themselves seem more upmarket.

Cheaper cars, like the Ford Fiesta, used to be a fairly basic, cheap family car. Now, it's quite different. The latest generation Fiesta is crammed full of creature comforts (which can be a good or bad thing, see an older blog post on automation) and the price has gone  up to match, all the while staying as Ford's cheap car. A lot of similar cars have done similar things, to try and persuade more people to buy their cars, but it comes to a point. Cars nowadays are so complex that you can't change a lightbulb in them without specialist tools, and when the car goes wrong, it can only be fixed by the manufacturer.

Take my dads CC for example. During the Easter break a few weeks ago, his car developed an electrical fault with the boot. When the boot opened more than about 2/3rds of the way, the boot light went out and the tow hook release stopped working, and if the boot has been remotely opened then the car would lock itself, causing the alarm to go off when the boot was shut. This should have been something he could stop short term by pulling a fuse, for example, but he has no access to his fuse box. This meant that whenever we needed to release the tow hook, which was a lot that week, we had to close the boot partway in order to do it. Not too bad, you might think, but when you're in a hurry and forget about it, then it can be quite frustrating.

Now I admit that might have been a bit tame, so I have another example. On the marina that the boat is kept, there's a new boat manufacturer (English harbour yachts, Oundle. Give them a Google). The boss of that company has a BMW 5-series, with the electric tailgate, and they used that car to lower the boats into the water. This was a great idea until the boot flooded, rendering the bootlid useless, as the electrics had shorted. This could have been avoided if BMW hadn't tried to be upmarket and fitted an electric bootlid, and had stuck with the manual one with an electric option. Now I know that the car wasn't designed to be putting boats in the water, but back in the day you could have used any car which had a high enough exhaust, without any problems

What I'm trying to say is that cars are trying to be too comfortable and easy to use, which means more electrical stuff is put in. This means that there is more to go wrong, and the car would then have to be sent in to the garage to have it fixed, at cost to the owner.

No pictures today because Opera was being weird, and kept crashing

Hybrids/Alternate-fuels

The Internal Combustion Engine is a complex, amazing machine. In perfect concert, valves open, spark plugs ignite, pistons move, and the crankshaft turns. Every fourth cycle an air-fuel mix explodes and a piston is forced down. The crankshaft converts the linear motion of the piston and connecting rod to rotational motion that eventually propels the vehicle. (Tesla Motors) 

Tesla model S

Most people say that conventional engines can't be beaten; they're tried, tested and reliable. But these people don't realise that, in theory, an electric car is better for several reasons.
1) More space. Due to the fact that an engine isn't needed, an electric car can have two boots (one where the boot should be, and one where the engine should be) and the batteries can go where the petrol tank, undersides of the car and bottom of the engine should be, to keep an even weight distribution,
2) More torques. Electric motors generally have more torque because they just do. A lot of normal engines only get peak torque nearer the top of their rev range, whereas an electric motor can give 100% of its torque instantly. This means that electric cars are quicker off the line than their petrol counterparts, hence why some top-of-the-range supercars are electric (Tesla Roadster, McLaren P1 and Porsche 918)
3) Instant horsepower. Again, because the motors can deliver 100% of the torque at once, they can do the same with the power. (read above) 
4) Very little/no road tax. Electric cars tend to have such cheap road tax because they don't push out any emissions, except for the few that have a small petrol engine to charge the motors (Vauxhall Ampera) This means that the UK government won't charge you to use the roads (theoretically).

Although there are a few good points to electric cars, there are some down points too, such as

Vauxhall Ampera

1) Limited range. Usually about 100 miles or so, a pure electric car can't go that far on one charge. Some cars are improving this by putting a small petrol generator in the car to keep the batteries topped up, but getting the range of a normal car is still a long way off
2) High costs. A hybrid will cost a LOT of money to initially buy, even with the government grant. A base model Vauxhall Ampera is £30,000 (£25,000 after the grant) which is a lot of money for the car, the equivalent petrol model is a lot cheaper. 

Typical LPG conversion

LPG powered cars are another viable alternative to conventional petrol cars. These use Liquid Propane Gas instead of petrol to power the car. It works by having 2 tanks in the car, one for petrol in the normal place, and one for LPG which is usually situated in the spare wheel well. The Car starts up and runs for a few minutes on petrol before seamlessly switching to LPG, and running just like a petrol car would whilst using it. If you then run out of LPG, the car can seamlessly switch back to petrol again, and give you a warning that you need to refill your LPG. I think LPG is a good idea, mostly because the price of it is almost half that of petrol, and second-hand LPG cars can be just as good as ones with brand-new conversions (LPG is an aftermarket modification) without paying the near £1000 cost for the conversion. 

Thinking about these points then, why don't car manufacturers make petrol-electric hybrids in the style of the Vauxhall Ampera that also have LPG conversions. A tiny petrol tank (I'm talking motorbike sized) just to get the engine stared and up to temperature when it is needed, and an LPG tank to run the engine on. The motorist will have to pay virtually nothing for the LPG, charging of the batteries and would still get the range that these hybrids are offering. Even using the £5000 government grant after buying a hybrid to convert it to LPG can't be too hard, and it is essentially being done for free. Quite frankly, I'm amazed I don't see more of this happening.

Muscle cars

As you may have already learnt, I have a passion for muscle cars. Classic American muscle cars are, in my opinion, the best. The classic 1960's Mustang, and the Charger of the same year. Beautiful cars, and they can be immensely fast when done right. 

My uncle has a 1970 Dodge Dart Swinger, one of the rarer muscle cars. Originally designed a a little brother to the Charger, The Dart went through several body shapes and engine changes, until the Challenger came along in 1970. It was then that the convertible option was stopped, along with the more powerful 6.3l V8. In that year, all the 2-door Darts were named 'Swinger' for seemingly no apparent reason. The car continued on until '76, when poor sales stopped production in North America. 

1970 Dart Swinger

I don't know how my uncle got hold of his car, but it was a replacement for a similar age Chevy Impala. I never got to see the Impala, but I was told it was an absolute dog. Apparently the engine had no grunt, and the interior was so tatty it looked like a bear had got in there. His Dart, however, is a completely different story. When I first went in it, about a year after he bought it, we were on a trip from Bicester to Santa-pod. I remember driving through Olney and seeing all these other Muscle cars parked up on the side of the road. Not so the road was full of them, but there were enough to be noticed. When we had left the sandwich shop and started the car, the alarms of the two cars on either side of us went off. We then carried on with the cruise, getting admirable looks from all the young kids in the cars we passed, along with their parents. When we arrived at Santa-pod, I couldn't believe the amount of muscle cars I could see. There was a Charger here, a Challenger there, a lot of Vipers and Camaros, all of different ages. We then arrived at out encampment. there were 5 tents that I could see, each one situated next to the cars they arrived in. We had a Plymouth Roadrunner (complete with wacky spoiler) two Chargers, a modern Camaro dressed up to look like an American police cruiser and an Impala. We unpacked our tent and went to enjoy our weekend. In short, it was amazing.

Enough of my story though, I want to explain my passion for these cars. I see them as classic versions of the "RS" versions of cars, the original fast family cars. If it wasn't for these cars, we wouldn't have modern muscle cars, such as the E63 AMG, or the more conventional Camaro

Modern Camaro

and Challenger. These classic muscle cars also seem to find a special place in other peoples hearts, as they are willing to spend tens of thousands of pounds on restoring them, after they have been neglected by their original owners, but also having been subtley upgraded, with new big block V8s, and power steering and brakes to help improve the driving dynamics of the car. In short, they look and sound great, and I'm told they drive great too.

Now, onto modern day Muscle cars. simply put, they aren't as good. The V8s don't have such a deep, throaty roar, and I doubt that they'll be remembered as classics in 40 years time. Even then, the classic Americana that I love will still probably be the cars that every muscle-car enthusiast wants. The modern day interpretations are too focused on creature comforts. Would the original challenger have had a touchscreen infotainment system? No. Heated, electronically adjustable seats? Tyre pressure monitoring? Bang&Olufsen stereo? No no no and no. My point here is that powerful, driver focused cars these days are even more cushy than their grandads, which were family cars.

To conclude then, I think car manufacturers that made classic muscle cars (Ford, Dodge, Chevy to name a few) should just go back to basics with their muscle cars; they should make them as they would have been made 40-50 years ago, and see how much the muscle car fan-base would love them for it. Also, a quick side note, I have a couple weeks of exams now, so my blog posts may not be so large or regular. I ask you to bear with me whilst I have my exams, and I'll get back to normal in a couple of weeks.

Boyracers

We all know what boyracers are: "its easy to see what a boy racer is. They're those w****rs that screech round the roads in their alloy-wheeled, big bore exhausted and lowered scrapheap cars and piss the rest of us drivers off" Generally teenage lads, new drivers, who go out and buy their new car, normally a 1.0l Citroen Saxo or equivalent, and then modify it to make it  look 'cool'. Newsflash, you don't. your car  looks tasteless, and the mods will more than likely make your car illegal, or uninsured.

Typical Boyracer car

Normal new drivers will buy these cars, add stupid bumpers on, drop the suspension and add new wider wheels. What these lads don't realise is that without telling their insurance company about these mods (and face getting a huge price hike) they just drive them around. Not telling the insurance company will render their cars uninsured, so they wouldn't be covered if they got into a crash, something which a lot of boyracers seem to do. Secondly, the stupid suspension and wheel upgrades these cars get. I see a lot of boyracers with their cars literally on the floor, with the wheel arches cut out to give them enough clearance for the wheels to turn in. Doing this must make the cars ride so hard, I'm amazed we don't hear about more people with shattered spines. Along with these suspension 'upgrades', boyracers put new wheels on their cars, generally larger ones. What these people don't realise is that changing your wheels can affect the accuracy of a cars speedo, and it will say the car is going slower than it is, again something that can land boyracers in a lot of trouble. Thirdly, these new bigger wheels are generally wider than the stock ones, so they stick out further than the furthest parts of the wheel arches, something which is illegal here in the UK. Along with these wider wheels, a car should get wider tyres, again something teenagers don't seem to understand. They prefer to stretch their tyres to fit the wheels, something which not only looks stupid, but can cause uneven tyre wear, and make their cars dangerous on the road. Finally, the massive exhausts that all these cars have. These exhausts can restrict a cars performance more than help it, because the boyracer doesn't upgrade the rest of the exhaust system along with their exhaust. The loudness of these exhausts can also be a problem, with some of the louder ones being louder than what UK laws permit at certain times of day.

Another thing is the quite ridiculous 'cruises' these boyracers have. They all meet in a convenient car park, and go for a cruise around the town, getting stuck in traffic caused by their fellow boyracers, discussing how 'mint' and 'sick' eachothers cars are. I was on a proper cruise last year in an old Dodge Dart (1970's, and it belongs to my uncle. It has about 1000BHP I think.) and a host of other similarly powerful muscle cars. We went from Santa-Pod to Wellingborough and back, a yearly cruise that happens as part of the Mopar Euronationals. We turned up in a car park outside Homebase, across the road from a Halfords, where there was a large group of boyracers, who had just come back from a 'cruise'. As we turned up, they all turned silent. We parked up and went to the KFC next door, and by the time we were back they had all left with their wussy cars. More on my Santa-Pod stories in a later post anyway.

Similar Dart to my uncle's

To conclude then, boyracers drive stupid cars, which they think are cool, to try and impress girls. What they don't realise is that a girl would much rather go out with a normal guy, rather than the spotty apes that boyracers tend to be. I think. Stupid, illegal cars that have no insurance. Avoid at all costs I suggest. Go to http://www.boyracerguide.co.uk for a bit of a laugh at boyracers' expense.

Limited edition cars

Limited edition cars are a good way for car companies to charge a premium for a car because it has a couple of features on it that makes it 'unique', but I think that what they do is right, to an extent. When it's a limited run of 500 cars, then there's nothing wrong, but when a car company keeps making the same car over and over again re-branding it as different special editions, then it's wrong. Also, if a company makes a limited edition car because of an occasion in the company, it's fine. If they just make the cars for money, then it's not.

For example, my mum's partner has a Ford Ranger as his personal car, which is one of 500  (I think) made to celebrate Colin McRae's WRC win in 2001/2 with Martini.

Ford Ranger Martini

The car has a special white and blue paint with the Martini rally stickers, upgraded wheels and tyres, upgraded suspension, a limited edition registration plate and chrome roll bars at the back of the cab. It looks a lot like a support truck, and with a set of orange flashing lights on top and in the bumpers, it turns heads. As this was a small run of cars to celebrate a victory in the company, I agree with Ford's motives in making the car

Supercar manufacturers, however, don't have the same rational thought process when thinking about special edition cars. Like Bugatti. Famous for the Veyron, they also make the Veyron GrandSport (Convertible) The SuperSport (that goes 270MPH) and a whole host of special edition cars, just to prolong the life of the Veyron.  They are also known to make one-off cars for their wealthiest customers (Like a lot of high-end car manufacturers do. Ferrari SP12 EC anyone?)

Ferrari SP12EC

What annoys me is that these special editions only look different to the original, all the Veyron Special editions have the same 16.4 W16, and no mechanical tweaks. At the moment, they make 5 special editions: The 'Pur Sang' has a carbon-fibre bit in the middle, with the rest of the car in Aluminium, the 'Hermes' has a brown bit in the middle, with "H"s in the wheels, and a Hermes-Designed interior. The 'sang-noir' which is just painted black. There is also two centenary versions, one in blue and one in any of the 4 original bugatti colours. As I said earlier, these cars have no mechanical tweaks compared to the original, and are just a way of making Bugatti more money.

The Veyron L'edition Centenaire family

To conclude, I think that limited edition models are good things, as long as the car companies have a legit reason for making them, and don't just make them to make more money.

Niches

I recognise that there were many possible nichés within the older car market, say 5 years ago, but in today's market, there aren't any more, yet car companies seem to keep finding them and making a car to fill it. It's like they're creating an answer to a question that nobody has asked except the executives at the car companies. 

Let us take Audi as an example for this one. We all know their models, the A1 to A8, the 'Q' series of cars and now the incoming 'e-tron' series. Not that many cars (13 ish) but, taking in all the bodystyles, you're up to about 45. Now, while this may be a good thing for the company (many cars for people to chose from, therefore there must be a car for everyone) it isn't a good thing for the public. They're given too much choice, and are therefore more likely to pick a car that actually isn't for them. Let's be honest, who needs 2 versions of the standard (3door), sportback (5 door) and saloon versions of the same car (A3/S3) Another stupid thing is that the A3 and other variants start at 18,900 GBP whereas the S versions start at 30,000 GBP. And what do you get for your extra 12K? a stiffer ride, less comfy (but more supportive) seats, and a thirstier engine. Madness

US BMW website

UK BMW website. Notice the difference?

Another Company that does this is BMW. But they're even worse, because they have 34 models, but you can have any one of 466 variants. Yes, you saw that right, 466. And that's only in the UK, in the US, you can have even more variants. You can choose one of 3 4-series convertibles, before you get to the M4. Or one of 4 6-series convertibles. What's wrong with just offering one model and having a couple more engine choices BMW? or are you just trying to patronise the Americans? (No offence meant) I also don't understand the new numbering system for Beemers. The 3 coupé is now the 4, with a 4-door 4-series  in the works. That's already happened with the 1-series. (The coupé and saloon are now the 2, with the hatchback the only 1-series) Personally, I don't understand the motives behind this move, but who am I but a 15-year old boy? My dad went into a BMW dealership the other week and, whilst chatting with the salesman, asked why there had been a name change. the salesman didn't know, which goes to prove how stupid the move has been. 

466 Model variants. 

To conclude, car companies are trying to find too many nichés, and are filling them with pointless cars, then replicating those cars (The 2-series and 4-series BMWs have the same engines and the 1 and 3 respectively) to get more money. Probably. Stupid idea anyway, if you ask me. Sorry about the slight technical hitch here, I don't know what happened.

Older Cars

When I say older, I mean late 90's/early 00's not 50's and 60's. Just to avoid confusion. Anyways, I don't like older cars for several reasons. Firstly, the generally tend to be quite small. Take my mum's old car for example: a 1998 Ford Escort estate.

1998 Ford Escort estate. Not designed
for humans.

That was so small inside that me, at 5'2", couldn't fit in the front without moving the seat right back, and then I'd have to move it forwards all the way to get in the back seat. I was also getting to the point where my head was touching the roof when I was sat inside. Basically, these older cars aren't made for full-size humans to get in the back.

Another bad thing about older cars is the type of people that own them. For example, an early 00's VW Passat or Audi A6 will have depreciated so much that anyone could buy one, Like seemingly every Eastern European bloke in the area I live in. Now, don't get me wrong, there's absolutely

2000 A6. Polish drivers car of choice

nothing wrong with  these people, except for the way they drive. Especially the Audi drivers. They drive so close to the rear bumper of your car, it's like they're trying to mate with it, or they drive so quickly that they're risking their lives trying to get past. Stupid people.

The final thing is old people driving older cars. They'll drive everywhere at 10MPH under the speed limit, barely able to see over the wheel, and are responsible for more crashes than any other groups of drivers, except new drivers (But don't hold me to that one) They also drive around in poorly maintained cars, generally Vauxhall Merivas where I live, and complain that 'da yoof' are driving stupid cars. Stupid people.

Vauxhall Meriva. Car for old people

So, a shorter one for you today, but I hope you enjoy it nonetheless. Basically, 90's and 00's cars are stupid and should all be crushed or set on fire, in my opinion. Leave a comment to have your say, and to say what I should do next.

Golf

Golf cabrio. Forget about the EOS did we VW?

The VW Golf is now in its 7th generation, and it looks better than ever to me. I like how the Car has grown over the years, and is now one of the most popular family cars in the UK. It has many body styles (Hatch, Estate, Cabrio, 'plus') and many engines, so there's something for everyone. It also has a very upmarket interior, which makes it feel like a very premium car. There's even 4 'Hot' Golfs on sale: GTI (Petrol), GTD (Diesel), GTE (Electric) and R (I believe it is used instead of "R32") Now, whilst these sell well (Or so I'm told) VW have decided to think about a 'monster' Golf, or, to be specific, a 395BHP, 2.0 turbo 4-pot Golf "R400".

Golf R400 anyone? 

Stupid. This car is only in concept form at the moment, but VW has said that the car is 'plausible' which means that the're gong to make it. Whether it'll just be one, like the old golf W12, or a mass-produced monster to create a new niche of super-hatches, we are yet to know, but watch this space...

Golf MK7 interior. Not angled at the driver.

Anyways, back to the current Golf family. There are several things I like about them, not least the dash, that finally looks included into the car, and faced towards the driver without actually facing the driver. It means that front seat passengers are less likely to fiddle with the radio, yet still fiddle with all their climate control settings and the rear-seat passengers can see the sat nav, a standard feature in all golfs. The DRLs are pretty funky too, even in the base model. They do get better in the hot versions, and you can also purchase the light clusters separately, something which I don't think is a good idea unless you're qualified enough to seal them in properly.

 Next, I want to talk about the windows. In short, they're rather tall for the car, especially when you're sat in the passenger seat with it fairly low down (as I do, because I'm used to the CC) not only does it make the car feel incredibly light inside, it also makes the car seem bigger, because of the proportions and stuff. I don't know the science behind it. It just works and looks good. 

Golf VII GTI. Pretty.

Last point: Optional extras. The Golf has loads, and what may start as a fairly cheap 17K golf can soon be quite expensive when you add these extras. In most cases, it's cheaper to go for the next model up. Some of the options are a bit pointless, I think. Take the "Leather trimmed three-spoke multifunction steering wheel". 400 quid for something that's free in higher up models. That option might be a useful one though, so take the 103-pound bike holder for the roof. Pointless because what family doesn't have a roof-rack anyway? I can understand that option for cars like the CC, where a standard one won't fit, but on a Golf? My Dad used to have a MK6 golf, and his Thule roof rack that he bought for his Peugeot fitted fine. Fitted his A4 too, both cars which have roof rack options. Just buy a good quality one and save money on every car you buy. 

Automation

Personally, I think that the increasing automation of cars is more of a hinderance than a help. This is because it is giving the drivers less and less to do whilst driving, and while this may be a good thing for some drivers (Boyracers and tailgaters) it can distract normal drivers. Cruise control, one of the first automated features in cars allows the driver to keep a constant speed without having his feet on the pedals. This may be a good thing for long motorway stints, when you're in and out of average speed zones (Here in the UK anyway) but when you use it, you don't pay as much attention to your speed, so you could easily be speeding if you miss a speed limit sign. Good for the cops, but not for drivers. Yes, these mistakes could be stopped by using a system similar to the one in the new Golf (Maybe other cars too, I don't know) where there is a camera on the front that can see speed limit signs, and adjusts the adaptive cruise control accordingly (If ACC has been specced) Another thing that cruise control doesn't do is stop accudents; Say you're cruising behind a car at 70, and that car suddenly brakes. unless you were paying proper attention, your car would go straight into the back of the car in front. Again, a bad thing, but another one that car manufacturers have sorted with collision avoidance systems, which brake as soon as the car in front does (Another thing that has to be specced though)

S-Class. Autonomous.

Secondly, collision avoidance systems (CAS). They're good because they can stop an accident from happening, but if the drivers are good enough, accidents shouldn't happen. CAS can allow your car to slow itself down to match the speed of the car infront, but also stop your car if a crash is imminent. Whoopee for car owners, because they're less likely to have an accident, but it allows car drivers to be lazy and pay less attention, which can be dangerous when they drive a car  without CAS. Another CAS feature is one that I'm sure a few new cars have: Lane Departure Avoidance System (LDAS). LDAS allows cars to 'see' where the white lines on the road are, and stop the driver from going out of them accidentally, which can be a good thing (Stopping accidents) but it can be a bad thing; It gives drivers knowledge that the car will steer itself when their hands are off the wheel, something that enables the driver to reach across to the back to get their thermos, take his hands off the wheel and eyes off the road, and have no control over the car. If there were an accident, the driver wouldn't be able to avoid it.

Stereotypical autonomous cars

Thirdly, fully autonomous cars. Yes they exist, and yes, they are mass produced, not Passats and Prius' with cameras and GPS on the roof. For those of you who don't know, I'm on about the new Mercedes S-Class, which is fully autonomous up to 20MPH. This means that around town, this Merc will drive itself around town, which means more lazy drivers. The S-Class also has all the CAS systems, which  means lazy drivers with powerful, expensive cars, that are more likely to get into accidents.

To conclude then, I think that cars should be either not autonomous or fully autonomous, with no in between. Autonomous cars for the idiotic drivers, where they have no control at all, and are not allowed to drive normal cars, and normal cars for everyone else. Simples.

The Focus driver should have a fully autonomous car

Mercedes A-Class

The older Mercedes A-class' were never pretty cars, with their wedge-y shape, and high center of gravity, that meant they fell over a lot in the EURO NCAP tests (Something every new car has to do to be deemed safe on the road for those who don't know) I have also noticed that the wing-mirrors on them are strangely low, due to the wierdly low front windows (In proportion to the driving position) Another thing I dislike about them is the fact that you didn't sit IN them, you sat ON them; when getting into the car, you stepped up, and the floor was above the door sills, which is stupid unless the car's an SUV. For me, there was no redeeming factors. 

Old A-class. Stupid.

 The new one, however is majestic. I can clearly see that the design team have spent a lot longer making this car look nice, and it worked. The new A-class has learnt from its rivals (Golf, 1-Series and A3) and is now a good-looking car, whilst still going well (apparently) and being practical, whilst retaining the Mercedes luxury that a driver would expect. It also follows the curve with what engines and driving characteristics with its rivals, FF (Front-engine, Front-drive) for most variants, FA (Front-engine, All-Wheel-Drive) for the range-toppers, which I think is commendable, as this allows the A-class to truly compete with its rivals

New A-class. Not stupid.

 Although the new A class is a good car, it does have some down-points: When in AMG or one of the AMG-impersonation specs, the only roofliner you can have is a black one, which makes the car very claustrophobic. It also has the sunvisors too close to the driver's and passenger's heads, to make room for the long, sloping windscreen. The A-class also suffers from the same disease that all newer Mercedes' seem to be suffering from; a foot-operated parking brake. Now, that's not too bad, some drivers prefer a proper handbrake, others prefer the electronic ones, and Mercedes drivers must like the foot-operated handbrake, but what I think is the worst thing about these foot-handbrakes, is their positioning: right where the footrest should be. I think this is a bad decision because it puts drivers in danger. Say someone were travelling along the motorway at 70, and they were to put their foot on the footrest. In a normal car, that would be fine, but in a Mercedes, doing so will apply the parking brake, which can endanger lives on the road. 

Concept cars

MK1 TT

TT Concept car

VW W12

I think that concept cars are a great idea, allowing car companies to preview their new models and tech before they go on sale, and see what the public's reaction is, but I don't understand why some of the concept cars either A) never make it to production, or B) have very drastic changes before being made. Take the Audi TT for example, there was virtually no change between the concept version and the Mk1. This is a good thing, because it was a pretty car, whereas other pretty concept cars made it nowhere near production, like the VW W12, or the Alfa Fivorante. These cars should have made it into production, because they're pretty, and therefore would have sold thousands of units, and would make the companies millions. It makes no sense to me, but I'm not the boss of a multinational car brand. Oh well.

Alfa Fivorante

Goodwood Festival of Speed

In June of this year, I'm going to Goodwood, and I am looking forward to going, and bringing you all the news from the festival regarding new cars and stuff like that. Leave a comment as to what you think will be previewed there, as well as what you want me to go see.

Bentley

Bentley are generally seen as a rich/posh persons car, and this is probably true for 60% of owners, but they had a rather poor spot in the 90's, where their quality went downhill. More recent Bentleys have become extremely pretty nowadays, after their split with Rolls-Royce, as they were in the early 20th century. I only mention this because today, on the trip up to Wales, we were driving behind the Queen's State Limo, which happens to be a bespoke Bentley, and it was an amazing thing to look at. With its long wheelbase, massive windows and the sheer exclusivity, this car was really something to behold. Personally, I think exclusive car companies like Rolls-Royce and Bentley should go back to what they used to do in the 20th century, and hand-make cars, bespoke to their owners wishes, so that there would be more exclusive beauties like the queens car on the roads, for us mere mortals to appreciate. 

The Queens car. 

Insurance

Now, I know that insurance isn't exactly "Cool car shots and news" but I thought I might as well talk about it, because it's something that I feel strongly about. Insurance prices are extraordinarily high, especially for younger drivers. Now I accept that this is because of Boy-racers, and their attempts to impress their girlfriends and mates by driving fast in their modified 0.9l Peugeots, Citroens and the like, and eventually crashing, but I believe that insurance companies charge such extortionate prices not to cover these idiots, but purely to make millions upon millions of pounds of profit. I believe that insurance companies should be run as not-for-profit organisations, with just a bit set aside for paying out to people, so that prices can be driven down for the motorist. Another good idea that I think most Insurance companies are missing out on is the Black-box scheme, where the insurance company can see how a person drives, and alter their insurance cost accordingly. I believe that offering a Black-box scheme will lower the cost of insurance to the ordinary teenage motorist, as well as making sure that the people who drive erratically have their premiums forced up so high that they can't afford to drive. Win-win really. Any responses please comment

Typical Boyracer car. Peugeot 106. 

Quick note

Just to say, you may have noticed that I'm fairly VW biased. That's because I am, with my dad having owned VW's for 3 years, at the moment having a CC (18 months, 75,000 mi) my mum having a Golf (3 years) and my mum's partner working at a VW dealership (Golf GTD, 1 month, 120 mi) so although I do have a fair bit of VW in me, I do try and be less biased, but I do ask that you consider that this is MY blog, and if my influences creep in, I'm sorry

Dads CC

Skoda CitiGo

Now, recently I went on a young-driver training course, for under 17's, which I actually found very fun and informative. But I want to talk about the cars that were used: Skoda CitiGos. Honestly, they were shit ('scuse the language). I know that they were chosen because of their low price, but honestly, these models, 3 door bog standard ones, didn't even have height-adjustable seats - a no cost option. they did, however have them painted in different colours, red and white, which does cost. It made no sense to me, either. The clutch was also on its way out, after being driven a whopping 600 miles. Probably from people driving on engine noise and getting the gear shift times wrong, as the Skoda has no rev-counter. My dads car (VW CC) has done over 75,000 miles and is still on its first clutch. The windows on the Skoda were wind-down, something which I wouldn't expect from a mid-market brand. No mirrors on the sun visors either, something which even the Dacia Sandero has, which is cheaper. Good looking car though, easily the prettiest Skoda at the moment. Based on the VW up!, I could easily see the influences. In short, it's the same car, with different front and back bumpers. I hope the VW is a lot nicer on the inside though, being a more upmarket brand. Just sunvisor mirrors, electric windows and height-adjustable seats would be enough, frankly. 

Skoda CitiGo

Scirocco

The Scirocco (Sorry if I butchered it) is a pretty car, there's no two ways about it. Personally, I'm a fan of the sporty styling, nice interior and the way it goes. Now, that last point, I can't vouch for that last point particularly well, as I've only ever been a passenger in one (as I'm only 15 at the time of writing) but those experiences in Sciroccos have been great. I've been in all models, from the base ones to GTS and R models, and have witnessed the small developments over its 6-year life (again, at the time of writing) and I have been amazed at how well the Scirocco has stood the test of time, and it has only now had a facelift, which can be seen in the picture. With the facelift, I honestly think VW have far surpassed themselves. It looks great. The design team have said this was a move to bring the Scirocco more in line with the current generation of Volkswagen cars, but I think this is a preview of what VW has in store. The grille, for a start, is unlike any seen on other VW's, as are the large light-y air-intake-y things under the main lights. The wheels on this show model are a bit naff, but there'll more than likely be other, larger wheel options when the car is available for order, later this year. Anyways, good car, great facelift, I like.

The 2014 onwards Scirocco

Long time, no see

Well. 2011. 3 years. To be honest, I totally forgot about this blog, but I think I'll start posting again, see how long I can keep at this. It may be only 5 posts again, but I'll try