TTAC commentator jdmcomp

I own a Jaguar (Ford Era) that gets driven only about once a week, with jaunts of a few miles to several hundred. I keep syn oil in the engine. I have owned this car for several years and the only problem to date is the flat spotting of the tires. What should I do to keep this vehicle in good running condition? Is weekly driving enough?

Sajeev answers:

As someone with more cars than sense I could use, let me tell you: weekly driving is the best place to start.  Driving prevents leaks from dried out gaskets, keeps fuel (especially E10 blends) fresh by never letting it go bad, recharges the battery, keeps tires round, prevents fluids from separating into its base ingredients (coolant turning into jelly or crystals),  brakes (caliper pistons) free of rust and ensures your HVAC system doesn’t get sticky mechanisms/stale smelling.

This driving regiment will highlight “old car” problems: some major enough for immediate attention, others not important enough to ever address for the life of the vehicle. It’s all part of the process, and it’s a fun process.  Why?

Because NOT driving a car is a death sentence. Drive the Jag sometimes and drive it hard.  You already trust it for long journeys, this is a no brainer. The Jag will like it, and you will love it.**

• Bad day at work? Take the Jag to the corporate car park tomorrow.  Shock/impress/intimidate your co-workers.  They need it, too.
  
• Want to make a statement at a party?  Motor in the Jag and come correct, like a Boss.
• Nervous about a first date? Not in a Shaguar you ain’t!  Yeeeah baby, yeah!

**Weather pending. I’m looking at you, Rust Belt.

Bonus! A Piston Slap Nugget of Wisdom:

In the above, replace Jaguar with Cougar and you have my basic story. My story is the truth, especially once the cat was old enough for classic car insurance. I know my story applies to anyone with a vehicular “toy” in the garage for occasional use.  Man or woman. Rich or Poor.  Black or White.  Bus pass or mundane daily driver. Jaguar or Cougar. 

Please believe: You gotta Do It, To It.

Send your queries to sajeev@thetruthaboutcars.com. Spare no details and ask for a speedy resolution if you’re in a hurry…but be realistic, and use your make/model specific forums instead of TTAC for more timely advice.

The San Francisco Bay area will investigate a proposal to implement cost-per-mile driving, as a way to raise money for public transit and road repair while reducing pollution and congestion.

MercuryNews.com reports that

“…drivers could be required to install GPS-like odometers or other devices in their vehicles and pay from less than a penny to as much as a dime for every mile driven. The idea could take a decade or more to be launched.”

The proposed mileage-based revenue collection would add an estimated $15 million per day to Bay Area coffers. Other proposals, like road tolls, HOV lanes and expanded public transit in suburban counties.

Before the Bay-Area stereotype diatribes begin, it’s worth noting that Atlanta has already investigated cost-per-mile driving…as well as locales in Oregon and Washington. Concerns about privacy and government monitoring were denied by one transit official, who was quoted by MercuryNews as stating ”the last thing we’re interested in is where you go and what you do…”, but that’s unlikely to soothe any concerns about unnecessary surveillance.

As unpalatable as cost-per-mile driving is, this won’t be the last we hear of it, and it won’t be for the purposes of reducing greenhouse gas emissions - how do you think our roads will get repaired if people start using EVs or alternative fuel vehicles, and gas tax revenues plummet?

With the release of the SciBaru FRZ just weeks away, everyone’s been caught up in the sticker price, available options and aftermarket support for the car, but nobody has asked a crucial question; what about insurance?

Insurance premiums tend to vary by jurisdiction, but under-25 males (such as myself) always suffer from financial trauma when trying to insure anything remotely interesting. In some places, paying double digits to insure a Corvette Z06 is considered robbery. Here in Ontario, anything under $150 a month for a young person is a steal, and the cars that can be insured for that little are not even remotely cool.

I don’t really care whether the FR-S/BRZ will drift easily or not, but I know lots of people will. There will be a percentage of people who will confine their behind-the-wheel adventures to the track, but there will also be another percentage that will attempt to play Formula D on public roads, or engage in other forms of reckless behavior. And this group, no matter how small, may ruin it for everyone.

While the sticker price of the cars aren’t exactly exorbitant, my friend Michael Banovsky over at Sympatico Autos raised the idea that high insurance premiums could conceivably kill the car’s appeal to a significant portion of its target market. Even though it’s a 2+2 coupe with a naturally aspirated engine, a few too many accident claims or speeding tickets could see premiums spike upwards to a level where even the most car-obsessed fanboy with a terminal lack of financial acumen might shy away from buying one. In Ontario, insurance for cars like the Honda S2000 or Subaru WRX can cost hundreds of dollars per month (I was once quoted over $500 per month for a WRX. I was 21, but without any tickets or claims) thanks to high theft rates and their adoption by local idiots who insist on racking up tickets for illegal car modifications, speeding, street racing and reckless driving. One of the reasons my Miata doesn’t have such high premiums is because owners tend to be closer to collecting their pensions than paying off student loans and they’re rarely crashed or stolen.

High insurance premiums are cited (along with gas prices) as a reason for the death of the muscle car. I really hope they don’t torpedo the BR-Z either. There’s really not much that can be done about it, save for people driving responsibly and not screwing it up for the rest of us. Unfortunately, wishing that the world was a certain way rather than accepting it on reality’s terms has consistently proven to be a losing strategy.

I called my insurer to get a quote on the BRZ/FR-S for this article. They didn’t even have it in their database yet.

Though the idea that there is a “war on cars” appeals to certain segments of society, there’s little evidence for any such effort. On the other hand, it’s pretty clear that there’s a “war on drivers” on, and it’s being led by the automotive industry. On the one hand, cars are being ever-more laden with distracting gizmos and toys, while simultaneously, companies are testing systems that minimize the need for drivers at all. Though Google’s autonomous cars get a lot of media play in this country, another system is moving Europe towards a similar endgame. Known as “Car-To-X,” the system allows cars to swap information like speed and direction, not just with each other but with traffic lights and traffic data collectors. The idea is to avoid traffic and crashes, by warning drivers of oncoming traffic in a left-hand turn scenario, for example. Because who wants to use their eyes to make sure they’re safe when technology can do it for you?

According to Autobild, the first public German test of the system will begin next spring, with 120 vehicles taking part. GM is currently testing a similar system. If all goes according to plan, systems like this and Google’s autonomous technology will fulfill GM’s prediction that autonomous vehicles will be a reality by 2020, and the war on driving will be won. Or lost, depending on your perspective.

This report presents information about the effects of decisions that a driver can make to influence on-road fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. These include strategic decisions (vehicle selection and maintenance), tactical decisions (route selection and vehicle load), and operational decisions (driver behavior).

The results indicate that vehicle selection has by far the most dominant effect: The best vehicle currently available for sale in the U.S. is nine times more fuel efficient than the worst vehicle. Nevertheless, the remaining factors that a driver has control over can contribute, in total, to about a 45% reduction in the on-road fuel economy per driver—a magnitude well worth emphasizing. Furthermore, increased efforts should also be directed at increasing vehicle occupancy, which has dropped by 30% from 1960. That drop, by itself, increased the energy intensity of driving per occupant by about 30%

So, the industry (and its government regulators) still have a huge impact on overall on-road fuel economy, as there is still a major swing between the most and the least fuel-efficient car. But, as the chart above shows, even if you do pick an efficient vehicle (36 MPG in this example), it’s still possible to operate it at a serious penalty to fuel economy. According to the report, consumers have the power to cut emissions by a much as 45% by paying closer attention to the following issues:

Maintenance: Keeping your engine tuned, using fuel-efficient tires, and using low-friction engine oils.

Route selection: Maximizing highway use, optimizing the route’s grade/elevation profile, avoiding traffic

Driving techniques: Minimizing idle time, minimizing engine revolutions, using cruise control, minimizing a/c use, and driving less aggressively

And this emphasis on personal responsibility for fuel economy even touches lifestyle choices you never associated with driving. For example, the study notes

the average adult in the U.S. in 2002 was about 24 pounds heavier than in 1960 (Ogden, Fryar, Carroll, and Flegel, 2004). This weight gain results in a reduction in fuel economy of up to about 0.5%.

In other words, fuel economy as a holistic goal is a partnership between the industry and consumers. After all, even if the government mandates super-high fuel economy standards, it’s still up to consumers to operate their vehicles such that they actually achieve their promised efficiency. The power is in our hands to ruin our own fuel economy by as much as 45%, whether we drive a fuel-sipping subcompact or a gas-guzzling pickup. The only problem is that consumers no more want to drive super-efficiently than manufacturers want to make super-efficient cars. But sooner or later, something’s got to give… especially since on-road fuel economy has improved by .04 MPG per year since 1923.