Ben Kraal's New Now Know How - Cars

1970s Mazdas

nospam@example.com (Ben Kraal) — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 02:51:28 +0200

On the whole, post-1978 Mazdas are better looking than other Japanese cars of similar classes. They’re more “disciplined” and less “bitsy”. Pre-1978 and post about 1969, Mazda, like other Japanese manufacturers was into heavy ornamentation for no apparent reason – thus baroque.

The R100 and RX-2 are the least baroque of the 70s Mazdas and thus the “prettiest”. The RX-2 coupe, more so than the R100, is at least in proportion. I find the R100 to be tail-heavy. RX-2 sedans are pretty but I find the detailing distracting where the curves meet hard lines.

RX-3s and RX-4s are the “toughest” 1970s Mazdas but the physical size of the RX-3 and it’s slightly too large glasshouse always looks a little off to me. The RX-4 coupe is the best of the -3 and -4, to my eyes and then they’re all too high, anyway.

RX-5s are better because all the over-the-top details seem to work together, as if Mazda finally managed to say what they were trying to say with the RX-3 and RX-4. The Landau is perhaps going a bit too far, though.

(Yes, another C&P from something I wrote on AusRotary).

The sort of car that starts easily

nospam@example.com (Ben Kraal) — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 07:02:07 +0200

The car stood in the middle of the yard, quite unattended, the stable-helps and other hangers-on being all at their dinner. Toad walked slowly round it, inspecting, criticising, musing deeply.

‘I wonder,’ he said to himself presently, ‘I wonder if this sort of car starts easily?’

Next moment, hardly knowing how it came about, he found he had hold of the handle and was turning it. As the familiar sound broke forth, the old passion seized on Toad and completely mastered him, body and soul. As if in a dream he found himself, somehow, seated in the driver’s seat; as if in a dream, he pulled the lever and swung the car round the yard and out through the archway; and, as if in a dream, all sense of right and wrong, all fear of obvious consequences, seemed temporarily suspended. He increased his pace, and as the car devoured the street and leapt forth on the high road through the open country, he was only conscious that he was Toad once more, Toad at his best and highest, Toad the terror, the traffic-queller, the Lord of the lone trail, before whom all must give way or be smitten into nothingness and everlasting night. He chanted as he flew, and the car responded with sonorous drone; the miles were eaten up under him as he sped he knew not whither, fulfilling his instincts, living his hour, reckless of what might come to him.

If that’s not the best description of how driving feels…

Actually, it is the best description. So there.

(from The Wind in the Willows, chapter 6)

HR Giger does motorcycles

nospam@example.com (Ben Kraal) — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:42:37 +0200

Not really, but this b91 Wraith from Confederate Motorcycles sure looks like something out of Alien.

Particularly awesome.

Old school vs. Nu Skool

nospam@example.com (Ben Kraal) — Mon, 22 May 2006 05:22:32 +0200

This video of a Peugeot 306 and a Bugeye Sprite hillclimbing from Top Gear is hilarious and the uneducated comments on YouTube are the icing on the cake.

The 306 is modified almost beyond recognition with a bodykit, big stereo and a 200hp 3.0L V6 out of a 406 stuffed into it. Oh, and it has hydraulics.

The Bugeye is presented as being unmodified (at least its modifications aren’t mentioned) but the narrator mentions it has 130hp which means that it’s probably got a modified 1275cc Cooper S engine in there instead of the 948cc original. They prep the bugeye for racing by removing the windscreen, among other things. (Best comment from one of the Max Power dudes, of the Bugeye – “does it get any lower?”)

And then they do a very wet hillclimb with the Stig driving.

Guess who wins.

Bugs on the Windshield

nospam@example.com (Ben Kraal) — Thu, 18 May 2006 04:10:01 +0200

AutoIT quotes a recent Top Gear magazine review of the new Volvo S80:

Theres [an] optional driver-prompt: little cameras scan the mirror blind spot and flash an amber light when someones abreast of you. Trouble is, at certain speeds in the rain, they gather drops of water which fool the camera and trigger the light. Doubtless a little lip below the lens would cure it. So why not?

AutoIT then says that the fault was probably never encountered in the design stage of the car.

The fact is, modern cars are increasingly encrusted with new high-tech systems, and its doubtful that the development cycle of the car, long as it is, provides enough time to detect these kinds of wrinkles. When you have to test not only that the car does what its supposed to do, but also that it doesnt do what its not supposed to do, testing can take a lifetime.

And then, AutoIT says:

Given that more and more cars have touch screens and, in the future, will be internet connected, it wont be long before drivers will have the option to send bug reports direct to the makers. Itll be just like using a beta of Internet Explorer 7 only at high speed, down the motorway. Now wont that be great!

As Fro would say, “oh, the huge manatee!"

I can think of absolutely nothing worse than car makers taking the view that their cars are always undergoing development and that consumers/drivers are going to report bugs. Do consumers even know if something is a bug or a feature? IE7, like many products, prompts you to send a bug report on a crash. I can see it now — airbags go off and the touch-screen prompts, “Would you like to send a report to head office?”

Flawed cars

nospam@example.com (Ben Kraal) — Thu, 11 May 2006 04:02:20 +0200

This is just something I found when looking for an old post of mine on AusRotary. I wrote it in response to someone calling me out when I said that RX-2s were flawed in a discussion of which out of RX-2, RX-3, early RX-7 or Datsun 1600 was the best.

The starting point of what follows was for me to justify why RX-2s are flawed.

...Well, they’re an old Japanese car, for starters.

Second, going by conversations with people who’ve driven them in competition, they’re not the best handling things in the world. The reason why RX-3s and RX-4s went back to leaf-spring rear-ends was that Mazda basically admitted it didn’t know a lot about coil-spring rear axles (and they still don’t have it right on the 1st gen 7).

This is not to say that RX-2s suck. They are very pretty, they have the last remnants of some “European” styling that Mazda played with in the 1500/1800s.

All of the cars in the list are flawed. RX-3s are, in my opinion, too small for the power that most people like to see in them and they are overexposed, in much the way that 1600s are. 1600s are a rip-off of a BMW 2002 which by some things I’ve read were great but liable to bite you if you weren’t a brilliant driver. The cruel things that people do to 1600s (17” wheels and way to low) in an effort to make them look “tuff” put me off them, too. According to Fro (who is a Datsun freak, BTW) the basic rear suspension design of a 1600/180B works pretty much backwards to how it should.

1st gen 7s? Don’t get me started! Rear suspension – bodgy. Styling – only really works from some angles. Brakes – too small for the power that everyone thinks they need in them (but more than adequate for sensible power). Interior – dark brown in most cases – need I say more? Drivetrain – gearbox ratios suck, diff is too tall.

(Just about) Every intesting car is flawed. Porsche 911s pre the 993 revision are evil-handling arse-engined Nazi slot cars¹ but just about every car nut lusts after a 911.

Hell, I like MGs, Triumphs and Jaguars so I am hardly one to listen to if you think my opinion on flawed cars means that they’re not worth considering.

MGBs have crap front and rear suspension, are heavy for what they are, use gutless engines that should have been relegted to use as industrial motors (and were!) long before BMC stopped using them and they rust in all sorts of expensive places.

Jaguars are so flawed that Sir William Lyons (head of Jag for years and years) used to say: “Make it beautiful and they will forgive anything” which just about sums up my feelings on them.

Triumphs are expensive, obscure, heavy, slow (for the most part), use tractor engines (for the most part) or have evil high maintenence engines that are so poorly designed you can’t even shave the heads!

Would I have a 1st gen 7? Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. I’ll have another one, too, please!
RX-2? I’m leaning to RX-4 sedans at the moment as my favourite Old-school RX.
RX-3? No, thanks.
1600? Pass.
BMW 2002 tii? In a second.
911? Nah, too expensive².
MGB? Yep with the Rover V8, thanks.
Jag? I’ll have a mid 60s Type S, thanks, or a Daimler V8 engined MKII.
Triumph? I’ll take a Mark 4 Sprite and a 2500S.

In short — flawed cars? Bring it on!

¹ PJ O’Rourke said that. It’s my favourite Porsche quote.

² as an old rally driver said to me once — you know the difference between a porcupine and a Porsche? With a porcupine, the pricks are on the outside.