A blight on God’s clean Earth #4 – Smart ForTwo

This post is written out of pure, fresh dripping spite. Everyone hates inconsiderate drivers, and wishes them a mediaevally horrible demise. And few things are more irritating and inconsiderate than lazy, pathetic, fat-cat parking. Leaving a vehicle diagonally across a spot, or leaving it a metre and a half away from the pavement, or in the middle of two parking spaces is an affront to civility, common sense and all that’s not blood-boilingly maddening. And it seems no-one is better at this than the average Smart ForTwo driver.

The basic idea behind the ForTwo was laudible. A small, cheap urban vehicle that sips fuel and can be bunched up together in herds while parked to save space. Unfortunately, the message that got through to the average commuter was to bring these things in to town in droves and park them in any sodding lazy way you please. Then there’s the business of its youthful, hip status symbol, but I’ve covered that in passing.

The other day, I saw two Smarts together occupying a single space. I should have taken a picture because it was like seeing a yeti or a UFO, or some strange, rare phenomenon people talk about but never see. A friend of mine, who was also my neighbour at the time, used to park his Smart head on, with no further manoeuvring after, whether it was 5 miles away from the pavement, diagonal, or bang slap in the middle of two other cars, where a simple reverse and approximation to one of the already parked cars could allow a normal, proper car to park in the resulting space. When I asked him why he wasn’t a bit more thoughtful he’d say “Why should I waste petrol bothering to park properly?” I don’t know if this is the way of thinking of other Smart drivers, but if it is, it’s a capricious thought because I had another neighbour who’d waste petrol to screw us other drivers over by leaving his litte crapmobile as far between cars as possible whilst parking. Not to mention the way they tax their weedy little engines by speeding stupidly and dangerously in town.

I haven’t even mentioned that pathetic “compact parking” concept. The idea was to be able to park the car at 90º angle, and given that the car was 250cm long, it would fit in spaces with that particular width and everyone would be happy. But parking spaces with 2.5 metres are usually perpendicular to the street, so people can open their doors without denting the car next to them. Spaces on the side of the road are usually around 2.2m, though you can easily get away with just 2m because even the fattest and stupidest jeeps and vans are around 1.9m in width. So “compactly-parked” Smarts jut out inconveniently, and it’s no wonder certain cities have forbidden this stupid practice.

In sum, the Smart ForTwo is a space-wasting, road-cluttering fashionista-mobile. Its potential advantages are blown to smithereens by the thickness of their owners, it’s practicality moot and its place in modern urban society debatable at best.

Amazing! Upcoming Peugeots may not be crap

After slagging off Peugeot, and especially the 3008 quite ruthlessly, here’s an entry to prove I’m not a mindless Peugeot hater. The above image came from here, and the fanfair is grand.

Take a look at Peugeot’s new baby coupé! Auto Express has learned that the Lion is getting ready to roar into the small sports car market with this sensational 2+2, which boasts Ferrari style at an affordable price tag.

Phwoar! A insy-bitsy Ferrari! I’m being a little sarky, but let’s be honest: it looks good. Gone are the ridiculous Peugeot grills and exaggeratedly swept-back headlamps. This seems promising! Let’s read on:

Small coupés are big news! You don’t need big engines and a huge price tag to have fun, which is why pint-sized sports cars are making a comeback.

And we’re then treated to a list of future coupés that fill the above criteria, which stupidly include a MINI Coupé (a stupid concept, since the MINI is already coupé-ish, and if you look at the pictures it resembles a MINI that’s previously had cartload of bricks tipped on it) and a Toyota Prius Coupé (?!?!?? I thought a criterion was it had to be fun and pint-sized? How can a bloated, soulless object like a Prius ever be either?).

But is the news of this Peugeot coupé too good to be true? Yes. Sifting through the comments, an interesting datum popped up. The Hyundai Veloster Coupé concept looks suspiciously similar. In fact, it’s obvious this Peugeot coupé was Photoshopped from the Hyundai, which gives us two possibilities; either Peugeot is teaming up with Hyundai to give us a common platform car; or the most certain, AutoExpress has been duped. Besides, after the announcement of the 308 RC Z, it would be stupid for Peugeot to compete with itself before the 308 RC Z was even available.

But fear not! If you, for some unfathomable, irrational, bile-swelling reason have a fancy for the Lion brand, Peugeot have decided to make a car that, at first glance doesn’t completely suck.

Dubbed the 508, it marks the return of the “5″ at the beginning of the designation, and harks back to my personal Peugeot favourite, the 504. It’s based on the RC HyMotion 4 concept of 2008, which shows Peugeot at least manages to make good use of its nicer concepts, unlike, say, Citroën, who ignore the C-Airplay. But I digress. This 508 car looks crackingly good, and not just for a Peugeot. It reminds me of an old Bugatti four door saloon, the EB112, which never saw the light of day. It has the same sort of profile and fundamental concept.

In conclusion, it’s a sign that upcoming Peugeots may not be dreary crap after all.

A blight on God’s clean Earth #3 – Peugeot 3008

Peugeot’s designation of cars was doomed from the get-go. The 504 was followed by the 505. The 205 by the 206 and 207. The 605 by the 607. The 309 by the 306. It’s messy, hard to distinguish, and worst of all, limited. The number-zero-number may be snazzy and unique, but it’s confusing and will only last as long as Peugeot are willing to dexterously play with the combinations. But we can safely say they’ve utterly botched it when the 305 was succeeded by the 309 and now their current 308 model has no possible successor number vacant in the present format. So they’ve shot themselves in the foot and added an extra nought. 1007 and today’s car, are examples. It’s doomed to failure but who cares? Peugeots tend to be so bland and forgettable they could call a model the Pi-0-Pi or 123Brilliant and no-one would look up.

One of Peugeot’s latest brainfarts is to make a car, in Autocar’s words:

part SUV, part estate car, part hatchback, part MPV.

Wow, talk about a fudge, But the underlying logic is as thus:

As Nissan has done with the Qashqai, Peugeot seeks to appeal to buyers’ fantasies by offering a taste of SUV without the weight, expense and social opprobrium of the real thing.

And from the response of the public, who have flocked to Peugeot dealers, this has worked. So you could say “Well, if lots of people liked it, it must be good!” But let’s not forget, majorities freed Barabbas, elected George W. Bush, and made Coldplay successful. Ergo, large numbers of people adhering to something doesn’t automatically make it brilliant.

Now I have no idea how it drives, how spacious it is or if it goes 1000 miles on half a tank. This isn’t de facto car journalism so objectiveness doesn’t count unless it suits me. So let’s get to what matters: the 3008 is unbelievably ugly.

Because it’s made to be high (to appease the ego of short people, methinks) and roomy, the proportions are dismally out of balance. And then it’s a Peugeot. And as all current Peugeots, it has the aesthetic appeal of a run-over badger. The ridiculously large grill looks even more ridiculous with that square pattern, a sure sign that the designer simply couldn’t be bothered to give the matter a second thought. The result is a gaping maw with the space between the ugly grill struts so large it looks like it can suck in small children unwary enough to wander too close while the car’s idling at the traffic lights.

The 308, though still hideous and nightmare-inspiring, at least has some interesting tail lights, a simple dash of sanity in an otherwise disastrously horrendous car. The 3008 has no such redeeming feature, with its tail lights having the appearance of symmetrical tomato stains someone carelessly dolloped on the back.

It’s an atrociously designed car, yet it has won over many people. To me, it epitomises the downward spiral in aesthetics Peugeot has been suffering from for quite some time. I’ve praised the 308 RC Z, despite its ugly face and silly wing mirrors, but your heart sinks just looking at this 3008 monstrosity. Will things get worse? Perhaps not. As I’ll comment in upcoming posts, Peugeot know how to make not completely crap cars every now and then.

Citroën DS2

After the Revolte concept, which got people talking of the prospect of a new 2CV, Citroën has decided to make a production version, naming it the DS2, as part of its new premium range that borrows its designation from that most sacred of cars.

I don’t know what to make of this. If I’m not mistaken, I read somewhere that the Revolte concept, apart from the silly-sounding name in English, was tailored toward a more feminine crowd. However, if the DS3 is a premium parallel of the C3, then it stands to reason that the DS2 has a correspondence to the C2, which doesn’t add up. The C2 is openly intended to be the so-called “boy racer’s” (i.e., street thug’s) car of choice. So logic dictates the DS2 for rich street thugs. Which is also a debatable point since street thugs with the slightest extra bit of dosh go straight for wanked-up BMWs.

But perhaps the most heated debate is the hype surrounding the car as a modern reincarnation of the Citroën 2CV. Now, in the interest of fairness, Citroën itself has never said anywhere that the Revolte was intended to be a 21st-century deuche. This was a sensationalist journalistic invention that cropped up when a teaser image showing the Revolte’s silhouette was posted on Citroën’s Facebook page, and people enthusiastically made out 2CV-style grooves in the bonnet. Of course, Citroën have done nothing to deter this idea, since all publicity is good publicity, but it might be counter-productive in the long run, when people find that this is nothing like the original 2CV.

The official production Volvo S60

Volvo have lifted the curtain (not that people have constantly peeked through it) on the production version of the S60. Its resemblance to the concept is very close, which is good because cars usually are awfully watered down from concept to production.

Citroen C6 3.0l V6 Hdi

A review of Citroen’s flagship, the unbelievably beautiful C6, with the new 3-litre, 240-horsepower diesel engine.

Amateur

A man in Switzerland managed to break 15 laws in 11 minutes behind the wheel.

The 47-year-old initially raced past an unmarked police car in heavy rain at 160 km/h (100mph) before weaving close to other cars and the road’s kerb.

The serial offender clocked up further offences for speeding, driving on the hard shoulder, running a set of red lights and failing to stop for police.

When finally pulled over by St Gallen police, he failed a drugs test.

The police spokeswoman said “I can’t remember a case this serious. It’s remarkable.” If she wants remarkable she should come to Portugal (or Italy). Then she’d see what’s remarkable.

Why did Smart kill off the Roadster?

In the words of Jeremy Clarkson, if we all bought cars with nothing more than reason, we’d all have Golfs. A well-built hatchback can be used for anything if you think about it, though if you’d dissect the argument further, you’ll find some holes. Let’s say you’re a young single man that has to commute long distances, alone and with little luggage. A Golf can do the trick, but then there’s the matter of those empty seats and cargo area, and all that extra metal’s weight pulling on an engine that’s probably to large to begin with anyway.

Ideally, you’d be perfectly served by a small two-seater with a tiny little engine. Perhaps at this point, the… thing called the Smart Fortwo will spring to mind. Let me explain something: the Fortwo is no more than a glorified microcar, that hipsters buy in order to look cool. Or at least think that in order to convince themselves they haven’t been ripped off for not having bought an Aixam instead.

I’m referring to a proper car, not a tupperware on wheels, so if you look through a list of production cars, few or none will fit the bill. Four-seater coupés are more or less rife, but that’s not what’s called for. Perhaps a Lotus Elise is adequate, but it’s more of a lead-footed, race-crazed maniac’s choice of ride, so we can rule it out on the grounds of common sense (not that I have anything against driving round really fast, in fact, it must be a hoot, I just don’t see why it should be done on public roads).

The car in particular I want to subtly get round to is the Smart Roadster. It embodies an approach to cars I would have thought would’ve been anathema to any other car enthusiast but myself: a car that looks good, looks fast and utterly miserly consumption-wise. The only fault with this logic was that because it was mid-engined and, in some cases, came with a flappy-paddle gearbox, it was perceived, sold and generally driven as a cut-price sports car. I like to think of it as a practical, little long-range cruiser, and both opinions are perfectly pertinent. Sounds like a recipe for success, so why did Smart kill it off?

This question is of course the title of this article, though it has a more philosophical purpose than begging for an outright answer. According to the Wikipedia page, production ended due to the high amount of warranty claims, so commercial success wasn’t the determinate factor for this decision. They terminated it because it was unreliable. This speaks volumes of Smart’s mother company, Mercedes, and it’s current state. Ask any Merc driver why he bought one and he’ll spout out useless prattle regarding “build quality” and “reliability”. First, as Mercedes themselves admit their current crop is far from the solidity of their robust machines of old. Second, if it was commercially viable, wouldn’t it have been cleverer to address and correct these reliability issues? Smart could have exclusivity in a niche of small cheap sports cars, different from the closest competitor, the more expensive, bigger-engined and thirstier Mazda MX-5. A niche no-one else has even bothered to fill, which is surprising given that the market showed its appetite for such things. After all, 43,000 Roadsters were sold in its two year run, not a number to be sniffed at.

Clever people have recognised what a good idea the Roadster is, and have given hints on restarting production. Project Kimber kicked off practically as soon as the Roadster was axed, and even a promising concept, the AC Ace (“AC” as in “AC Cobra”) was unveiled, with a restyled front end. This version has a 1.0-litre engine, which I’m not too sure about, compared with the brilliantly titchy 0.7 powerplant of the original. But alas, the official website is down, and no news has surfaced.

So, we’ll have to wait and see if the current climate of thinking up cheap, economical and eco-friendly cars produces an heir to the Smart Roadster.

CC: doesn’t mean just “cubic centimetre”

The 4-door coupé isn’t a recent fad that the Mercedes CLS and its fans and ignorant motor journalists would have us believe. Sweeping coupé designs for saloons have been around for longer (take Robert Opron’s fastback saloons of the 70’s, or the Volvo S60), though the CLS somewhat popularised it. The band wagon is roomy, as many cars since have jumped on. The Citroen C6, the VW Passat CC, the Opel Insignia, the hardly-convincing Audi A5 Sportback (after all, it did start life out as a coupé to begin with) and the hideous and stupid BMW 5 series GT.

I’d say from this it’s a clearly a predominantly German fashion, with the funky little VW Passat by far the most attractive of the Kraut-auto flock (The Citroen C6 is by far the most attractive in the Global Auto range, but I digress). The BMW 5-series GT looks like a dwarfish, handicapped, stunted SUV, and the A5 Sportback comes across as a coupé with those extra doors jammed in to meet a marketing niche for stupid people. The VW looks balanced and smooth, with nice lines and a striking presence, which the Opel has, but in less measure. If I were ever to buy German (and I hope one day I’ll have the money to even consider these things), the Passat CC would be a probable choice.

However, VW has been like my old Citroën BX’s hydropneumatic system and has been leaking, though in this case, interesting information.

First, was a glimpse of the future Golf VII, which I found rather strange since the Golf VI was released this year. It’s like VW are saying “Yes, we know this current Golf is disappointing, so we’re making another one.” The Golf IV was so brilliant both the V and VI are but pale images that simply don’t have the same appeal (though the rise in quality from competitors also helps this notion). The Golf VII is trying to get VW’s family hatchback into the arena of ball-bashing success.

Second, was none other than a Golf CC (original link). Which on the surface seems a good idea, building on the Passat CC’s appeal and widening the choice amidst the Golf range. But then I think: this will kill the Jetta (unless it’s the next-gen Jetta) and probably overlap the Passat range. Doesn’t sound so smart any more, though I must admit I personally find the idea of a Golf CC very clever and appealing, especially if it has a panoramic roof like the Passat version.

That will…

That will buff out. A site dedicated to showing “vehicles in compromising positions”, à la Failblog. Lots of fun, crap name.