Piston Slap: The Times They Are A-Changin'
TTAC Commentator NoChryslers writes:
Enjoy the website very much… so here are some questions.
- Why are interior and exterior color choices so limited right now? You have to pay extra for anything special. (Even then, good luck getting the carpet to match the drapes — SM) Seems to have started in the ’90s and we’ve been grayscale ever since!
- What happened to all of the convertibles?
- How do we stop the SUV/crossover tsunami?
Let’s hope these good questions make for a lively discussion in the comments!
Question 1: It’s always about the money, honey!
But it’s not all about “production hell” with startup manufacturers. You’re right when you said 1990s cars got boring, because they added seriously expensive-to-make stuff. There’s widespread adoption of four-channel anti-lock brakes, traction control, dual airbags, variable ratio steering, mass-air flowing fuel-injection, 80+ watt CD-playing audio systems, four-wheel disc brakes, even aluminum intensive engines/chassis/suspensions. There’s money saved in computer-assisted everything along the supply chain, but we’re still stretching the budget.
It put us down a path of boring and blah colors to go with today’s mandated standard backup camera and eleventy billion safety features, son!!!
A fine example of the era’s decline is the 1996 Ford Taurus — read the book about it. Then consider the purple or
booger money green interior. If you did, everything was color matched: seat controls, consoles, handles, the entire door panels and dash (no cost saving black inserts!) carpets, grab handles, etc. And there was plenty of aforementioned tech: airbags, ABS, all-aluminum four-cam engine, variable rate steering, etc.
So this was the best of both worlds? Of course not!
Bizarre styling aside, the 1996 Taurus was rightly panned for expensive window dressings that nobody cares about, and the subsequent undue burden to the entry level (and fleet) buyer. Check out those triple stitched leather seats with leather covering the sides and back (i.e. not mere leather seating surfaces), JBL-licensed tweeters behind metal grilles, even chrome-plated alloy wheels! The costs trickled down: the base model had a complex and cost-prohibitive flip-out console ( that also came in green), soft-touch plastics everywhere (even the glovebox) and a strong number of standard features. Enter the value-laden Taurus G, complete with deleted rear arm rest, no cruise control, and even a black B-pillar delete: a harbinger of the future, cost-engineered 2000+ model. Perhaps Ford shoulda kept adding content while avoiding foolish acquisitions?
This story and the underlying, surprisingly luxurious ownership experience is why the 1996-1999 Taurus is a seriously under-appreciated vehicle, but my digression goes too far now!
Question 2: convertibles cannot exist without a symbiotic relationship via sister ship in a profitable coupe. And often a sedan, be it BMW 3 Series or Chrysler Sebring! And we all know the Buick Cascada’s fate was sealed when PSA got its hands on Opel.
So no soup for you, unless you like Mustangs, Camaros, BMW 3 Series, or can swing the lease on a higher echelon Mercedes-Benz. Or stomach the repairs on the latter when fully depreciated.
Question 3: Just give up — and please believe some examples are both practical and enjoyable for a daily commute. What helped me was taking off my glasses, squinting a bit, and mentally overlaying a Chrysler Airflow to the side profile of any CUV. Sure, the Airflow has delicious rear-wheel drive proportions, but aside from the stubby nose, most crossovers are just the progressive 1930s and mainstream early 1940s whips all over again.
Go play L.A. Noire and hug your Equinox after.
[Image: Shutterstock user rivermo74]
Send your queries to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.
More by Sajeev Mehta
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- Carsofchaos The bike lanes aren't even close to carrying "more than the car lanes replaced". You clearly don't drive in Midtown Manhattan on a daily like I do.
- Carsofchaos The problem with congestion, dear friends, is not the cars per se. I drive into the city daily and the problem is this:Your average street in the area used to be 4 lanes. Now it is a bus lane, a bike lane (now you're down to two lanes), then you have delivery trucks double parking, along with the Uber and Lyft drivers also double parking. So your 4 lane avenue is now a 1.5 lane avenue. Do you now see the problem? Congestion pricing will fix none of these things....what it WILL do is fund persion plans.
- FreedMike Many F150s I encounter are autonomously driven...and by that I mean they're driving themselves because the dips**ts at the wheel are paying attention to everything else but the road.
- Tassos A "small car", TIM????????????This is the GLE. Have you even ever SEEN the huge thing at a dealer's??? NOT even the GLC,and Merc has TWO classes even SMALLER than the C (The A and the B, you guessed it? You must be a GENIUS!).THe E is a "MIDSIZED" crossover, NOT A SMALL ONE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, oh CLUELESS one.I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE NONSENSE you post here every god damned day.And I BET you will never even CORRECT your NONSENSE, much less APOLOGIZE for your cluelessness and unprofessionalism.
- Stuki Moi "How do you take a small crossover and make it better?Slap the AMG badge on it and give it the AMG treatment."No, you don't.In fact, that is specifically what you do NOT do.Huge, frail wheels, and postage stamp sidewalls, do nothing but make overly tall cuvs tramline and judder. And render them even less useful across the few surfaces where they could conceivably have an advantage over more properly dimensioned cars. And: Small cuvs have pitiful enough fuel range as it is, even with more sensible engines.Instead, to make a small CUV better, you 1)make it a lower slung wagon. And only then give it the AMG treatment. AMG'ing, makes sense for the E class. And these days with larger cars, even the C class. For the S class, it never made sense, aside from the sheer aural visceralness of the last NA V8. The E-class is the center of AMG. Even the C-class, rarely touches the M3.Or 2) You give it the Raptor/Baja treatment. Massive, hypersophisticated suspension travel allowing landing meaningful jumps. As well as driving up and down wide enough stairs if desired. That's a kind of driving for which a taller stance, and IFS/IRS, makes sense.Attempting to turn a CUV into some sort of a laptime wonder, makes about as much sense as putting an America's Cup rig atop a ten deck cruiseship.