Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons (exact same color and trim as the car I rented)

First Look

When observing the exterior of the car, many auto journalists like to criticize the “why so serious” smiling nature of the Mazda3′s front styling. While the design is not as clean as the previous generation, it has to be said that pictures do not do the 2011 Mazda3 justice; the front fascia is pretty unoffensive in person and I’m sure Mazda has some aerodynamic reasoning for designing it that way. Around the car, things fell within my expectations. The trunk easily swallows 2-3 decent sized luggage pieces and legroom is on par with a compact sedan. The interior quality is a notch above the Ford Focus and on-par with its Japanese rivals from Toyota and Nissan. Gauges are easy to read in all conditions, though it has to be said the layout of many controls leaves much to be desired. Mazda decided to opt for a Honda Accord-esque design for the stereo, where the standard and navigation-equipped models share the same multimedia control layout . The result is a cluttered and confusing interface that is frustrating to use, especially compared to the simple stereo used in the previous generation Mazda3. The driving position, after some quick adjustments, is very comfortable with good visibility all round, though I’ve sat in a hatchback model at an auto show and found the rear quarter panel blindspots sizeable.

Driving Impressions

The first thing to note is that the Hertz supplied car is the “i” model, not the higher-priced “s” model. From my limited understanding of the Mazda3 range, this has an important implications on my impressions of the car, especially in the the powertrain department. The “i” has a 2.0L 4 cylinder engine with 150 bhp and 135 lb-ft of torque while the “s” has a 2.5L 4 cylinder engine with 167 bhp and 168 lb-ft of torque (these are non-PZEV/California models). This also means that the “s” most likely has stronger suspension components to cope with the extra horsepower.

Like almost all compacts, the Mazda3 is very adroit in navigating tight parking lots and narrow city streets. Indeed, the last time I drove a car this agile was when I test drove a 2008 Honda Fit and that car handled like a shopping cart; I easily did a near 180 degree turn into a space, something my Altima could only dream about. So good is the low-speed handling that I was tempted to play with the handbrake and go drifting in the parking structure, but fear of arousing the attention of cash-strapped cops kept my sensible shoes on. Around town and the tree-lined streets of the Chicago Northshore, the 2.0L engine was well matched to the 35-50 mph speed limits, with decent mid-range clout for passing lumbering delivery trucks or old ladies heading to play bingo in their Buicks. Overall, a fun little car for running errands and going to local eateries.

However, at speeds greater than 55 mph, this is where the car’s good driving characteristics start to break down. Above that speed, the car starts to shake like a lot of economy cars, perhaps due to the lack of top-end power and the car’s relatively small size. The 5 speed automatic doesn’t like to kick down for passing manuevers and the engine is very rev happy, which isn’t so good for fuel economy. It has to be said that the manual shift mode, while in the proper orientation (pull back to change up and push forward to change down), is pretty much useless. There is a 1-2 second delay following pulling the lever and the transmission actually changing gear. You have to anticipate shifts about 200-300 rpm in advance, and thus I mostly left the gear lever in ‘D.’ Worse, when it comes time to stop, the brake pedal feels mushy and the car seems to have a lengthy braking distance. This could be due to the manufacturer supplied tires, but either way this did not inspire confidence on a rainy Kennedy Expressway.

Conclusion

The Mazda3 is a fun compact car to drive on vacation, especially on twisty roads and crowded city streets. If you’ve booked a Corolla, Sentra, Focus, or Cobalt, it’s definitely worth asking the rental counter if they have a Mazda3 in stock; it’s simply that much better. But would I own one? Probably not, at least not the “i” version that I drove. The interior layout quibbles are tolerable and the car is pleasant to drive around town, but the powertrain seems woefully underpowered on the freeway. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the 2.0L engine in the “i” carried over unchanged from the previous generation, despite the added weight from new niceties and safety features, while the old 2.3L (which I have driven) was bored out to 2.5L for the “s”. On the fuel economy front, the “i” gets an EPA rated 24/33 city/highway mpg while the “s” gets 22/29 (most likely due to the fact that Mazda stayed with an older 5 speed automatic). Compare this to a Nissan Altima 2.5S, which gets 23/32 on the EPA scale and gets you more room and utility. Thus, although I would recommend a Mazda3 s for its fun to drive character, it really doesn’t make sense when you can get a midsized car with better utility as well as fuel economy, for not that much more money.

2011 Mazda 3i

Rating: 2.5/5 stars

Upshot: A fun and great handling little car, but its gutless 2.0L powertrain, somewhat fiddly interior, subpar braking performance, and mediocre fuel economy are strong demerits.

Previously on this blog, I’ve said that cars from the 90′s are pretty bland and boring compared to their rakish older siblings from the 80′s and earlier. I’ve also defined the period from 1990 onwards as the period of the “modern car,” where cars must conform to ever stricter health & safety regulations, are often badge engineered, and designed by committees. However, based on recent observations, I’ve decided to re-evaluate my position on this subject and conclude that cars from the 1990′s are in-fact quite exciting and that the ‘beginning of beige bloat’ didn’t occur until the 2000′s.

So why the reversal in opinion? Well, as someone who grew up during that decade, 90′s cars have been commonplace in my mind. Previously, I thought of 1990′s cars as largely represented by truly terrible appliances such as the Daewoo Nubira, Chevrolet Lumina, and Mitsubishi Galant. These were the cars I would see going down the road everyday and crowding up the used car lots. But post-Cash for Clunkers, 90′s cars have become much rarer, and in most cases, the chaff has been winnowed from the wheat. Yes, I still think C4C was a terrible program, but it had the unintended side effect of revealing all the hidden gems that the automotive industry produced during the dawn of the Information Age. Furthermore, the exponential model bloat of the 2000′s (a 2008 Honda Accord is the size of a 1994 Chevrolet Caprice!) showed that cars of the 90′s weren’t obese at all. In many cases, they smoothed out the lines of their 80′s predecessors quite elegantly. As previously mentioned, the 90′s also marked the beginning of the retro movement, but these cars were not blatant copies of their ancestors. Cars like the Viper, Miata, and DB7 used retro styling to enhance character, rather than serve as a crutch (which is more than can be said for the PT Cruiser and Camaro). Finally, in many ways, the 1990′s were the last days of pure, raw vehicles. Sure, Lexus began experimenting with the hated engine cover, Mercedes fitted traction control, and airbags became mandatory during the decade, but 90′s cars are perhaps the last that you can actually work on with simple tools and equipment (and not that you would need to since the decade produced some of the most reliable vehicles on the planet). Everything since 2000 has become a computerized labyrinth that requires a garage full of expensive, specialized electronic diagnostics. Thus, cars from the 90′s will probably be the last true classics. Their modern, hyper-technological siblings from the 2000′s and onwards will likely be impossible to restore once their computers bite the dust. Small wonder then that weekend racers and drifters still prefer their 240SX’s, Integras, and RX7′s.

So to conclude, and with apologies to everyone who’s hung a picture of a Lamborghini Diablo, Ferrari F355, or Dodge Viper on their bedroom wall as a kid, I’ve come up with my large list of cool 90′s cars below. I was wrong and you were right. The 90′s were the last gasp for Alfa Romeo in the USA, the last time Toyota produced a real sports car, and the last days of air-cooled Porsches. Excuse me while I go out and buy a copy of Smash Mouth’s Astro Lounge…

• Acura Integra
• Alfa Romeo GTV
• Alfa Romeo 164
• Ariel Atom
• Aston Martin DB7
• Audi S4
• Audi RS2
• BMW Z1
• BMW Z3 Coupe
• BMW M3
• BMW E39 M5
• BMW 740i
• Bugatti EB110
• Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1
• Chevrolet Impala SS
• Dodge Viper
• Ferrari F355
• Ford Taurus SHO
• Ford Probe
• Ford Escort Cosworth RS
• Honda NSX
• Honda Prelude
• Jaguar XJ220
• Jeep Cherokee XJ Sport
• Lamborghini Diablo
• Lexus IS200/300
• Lexus GS300/400
• Lexus SC300
• Lotus Elise
• Lotus Esprit V8
• Mazda Miata MX-5
• Mazda RX-7
• McLaren F1
• Nissan 240SX
• Nissan 300ZX
• Nissan Skyline GT-R (R32-R34)
• Porsche 911 (993)
• Porsche 928 GTS
• Shelby Series 1
• Saab 9000 Aero
• Subaru WRX
• Toyota Celica GT-4
• Toyota Supra Turbo
• TVR Griffith
• TVR Chimaera
• TVR Cerbera
• Volkswagen Corrado

But in several ways, even despite the beginnings of the decline in  automotive design and the introduction of electronic nannies, 90′s cars can still be considered some of the best ever made. The perfection of electronic fuel injection meant that car companies could now boost horsepower once more, recalling the glory days of the 50′s and 60′s. The health and safety craze was not yet at its levels during the 2000′s, meaning that manufacturers were able to design safer vehicles that still had great visibility (via thin A-pillars) and halfway decent looks with clean lines (not as striking as the 80′s, but not as dull as the 2000′s). Finally, improved manufacturing processes meant that car reliability was substantially better, while cars were still fairly easy to work on (the complete domination of computer control and engine covers didn’t occur until the new millennium). Indeed there are still tons of working vehicles from the 90′s on the road today, as evidenced by the list of cars traded in during Cash for Clunkers last summer. These three positive characteristics of 90′s cars are best exhibited in period cars from the land of the rising sun: Japan.

The 1990′s are seen by many as the heyday of the Japanese car. US manufacturers were building rubbish like the Lincoln Mark VIII and Chevrolet Lumina, cars that had no redeeming features at all; they were hateful to drive and had truly terrible reliability. Japan provided the solutions to these woes; the Honda Accord was safe and endlessly reliable while the Mazda MX-5 Miata rekindled the joy of driving among many Americans. Even German luxury car buyers began to be wooed by the sirens of the Japanese. With the establishment of Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura, buyers began to wonder why they would pay so much more for a Mercedes, BMW, or Audi when they could get similar or even better quality from Japan at a lower price. I for one, believe this explains why Mercedes began cutting corners in the 90′s at the expense of quality in its desperate attempt to sustain profitability in the face of Lexus.

These period Japanese autos therefore very much define the “modern classic car.” From the Mazda Miata and Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo  to the Toyota Supra and Acura Integra, 90′s Japanese cars are revered by enthusiasts, racers, drifters, and journalists for their engineering, build quality, and balanced handling. Even today, RX-7′s still hold their own at drifting events and Miatas are the weapon of choice for SCCA members. Given their initial affordability and ease to work on, many of these cars have been modified, often unfortunately to garish levels by ricers. As a result, the values of unmolested examples of these cars is going up: one dealer recently listed a manual ’96 Supra with 36,000 original miles for nearly $60,000.

To conclude, if you’re an enthusiast who’s looking for something that looks cool and that you can have a blast driving on the weekend without the worry of breaking down, look into a 90′s Japanese sports car. You will have bought a great car that is likely to become valuable in the years to come.

This was my first time driving a convertible, but the initial impressions weren’t so good. The car was bronze with beige seats, more reminiscent of a real estate agent’s Chrysler Sebring than an Ultimate Driving Machine. The overall shape of the car looks very pleasing with the top down, but as with all folding hardtop convertibles, the proportions are a bit odd with the top up (though the BMW pulls it off better than any other manufacturer I know of). Because of new EU regulations, the wing mirrors are not the sleek units fitted on the 2009 3-series. They instead look like the large bulky ones fitted to the X3. Inside, the rear seats were very cramped indeed, with unusable cupholders and no arm rest. Clearly you can bring friends along for a cruise around town, but if you’re traveling much farther than the local Denny’s, you’ll probably get complaints. Due to the folding hardtop, the trunk space is severely compromised. You can barely fit in two backpacks, let alone luggage for a weekend trip; if it’s practicality you’re after, you’re better off sticking with the coupe. Furthermore although the folding hardtop articulation is cool, it takes a decent amount of time for it to deploy and BMW does not fit a one-touch button (you need to hold it down the whole time while the top is deploying or retracting).

The powertrain was not outstanding either. The howl of the 230hp, 200 lb-ft straight six engine sounds magnificent, but while in the coupe and sedan its power is more than adequate, here in the convertible it feels underpowered. The lack of torque is starkly evident given the obese nature of the convertible (it weighs roughly 450 pounds more than the 328i sedan, the culprit mainly being the folding hardtop roof) and you need to rev the engine to over 3000 rpm to move anywhere. Additionally, the automatic transmission in the convertible is tuned more for smooth cruising than sporty mountain driving, making the task of passing trucks a bit laborious.

But once you put the top down, you quickly start to ignore these demerits. In cruising up and down Sheridan Road (the main route through Chicago’s North Shore), you quickly forget about the dearth of engine torque or the lack of urgency from the transmission as you feel the wind in your hair. The sensation of speed is doubled and you don’t need to drive at illegal speeds to get a thrill. Your friends will also forget about their cramped quarters as they’re marveling at the 20,000 feet of headroom and the ability to see the whole world around them (though they’ll beg for you to put the windows up once you reach 40 mph as it can get quite windy in the back seat). Furthermore, most of the BMW Ultimate Driving Machine characteristics have been retained. The car feels heavier, but you still get the taut BMW suspension and the tight steering rack. I personally love the heavy, communicative steering in BMWs and I was pleased to see that it had been retained even in a boulevard cruising machine. The driver’s seat was supremely comfortable and most controls were also easy to use (though I still don’t like the iDrive). Finally, in many ways I preferred the brakes on the 328i over those in higher performance models They still performed admirably but weren’t touchy like those in the 135i (see the previous review on this blog).

In the end, however, the reason why I would not buy the 328i convertible is its price. The MSRP for the 328i convertible with iDrive is over $53,000, an insane amount of money to pay for a flawed machine. For that price, I would rather buy a used M3 convertible which still has ergonomic problems of the 328i, but also proper performance credentials. Another option in the price range would be the the base BMW Z4, which is better looking than the 328i and a lighter, more-focused automobile. But if you think about it, why pay over 50 grand for a convertible? For less than $30,000 you can pick up a Mazda MX-5 or a used Honda S2000, which are much more focused and entertaining cars to drive. Sure, the BMW’s have that sexy straight-six engine, but as I said previously, you don’t really need all that power when you put the top down. I would rather buy a simple, light car like the Mazda and drive it at 10/10ths than buy a complex, heavy car like the 328i that has tons of wasted potential.

Overall Rating: 2.5/5

Upshot: Still has that fantastic BMW handling, but impracticality, anemic performance, and the ridiculous price tag are large flies in the ointment.

At the dealer, I was given the keys to a base 2-door Golf with the 2.5L inline-5 gas engine and a Tiptronic 6-speed automatic gearbox. The first aesthetic impressions of the car were pretty good, beckoning back to the understated nature of the Mk1. The lines are very clean, although the stock steel 16″ wheels don’t look very good; 5-spoke alloys would have been better. Under the hood, the packaging is excellent, with the battery and fluid compartments all easy to reach. The hatch opens by lifting the VW badge, a nice touch, revealing ample space for 2 pieces of luggage, which is easily expanded by folding the rear seats down with one button. Getting in and out of the back seat is pretty easy with a single-action lever that folds the front seat down and pushes it forward. Back seat room could be more commodious though and the D-pillar is a bit wide, hindering rear visibility. In the driver’s seat, controls are all intuitively laid out for the most part. The climate control and radio are very easy to operate and every switch seems imbued with the slick German precision that we’ve come to expect from VW. The gauges are very clear and easy to read. Being a base model though, some convenience features were missing, such as steering wheel audio buttons and power seats (the manual seat controls were difficult to use). On the whole, however, the well-made interior can be a bit depressing, as everything is made of black plastic, including all the control knobs and and trim surfaces; even grey upholstery would have made it a bit more exciting.

Driving impressions, as expected for a German machine, were very good. The steering was precise and nicely weighted, and the Golf has a small turning circle (as you would expect for a compact hatchback), making it easy to park. The ride was firm but not jarring, slightly better than a competing Honda Civic but without the floaty nature of a Toyota Corolla. Five cylinders sounds like a strange number at first, but the 170hp, 177 lb-ft 2.5L plant does its job reasonably well with decent gas mileage (around 23/30). The engine has almost no torque at the low end, but acceleration never really labors. As an unintended side effect, this lack of low-end torque makes for very smooth driving around down. The transmission, a 6-speed Tiptronic automatic, felt precise, though the manumatic mode still tended to hunt a bit in its operation (it also has the hated VW positioning for push up to change up and pull back to change down). Braking was secure and true as well. Overall, the Golf is a practical car that will soothe your senses with its comfort and supple driving dynamics on the commute back from work, but it fails to receive many marks in the fun to drive category.

So, bottom line, would I buy one? There’s much to like about the Golf: it has a fairly versatile hatchback style, it’s well-built, and has decent driving dynamics. However, in base form it’s somewhat boring and current Euro exchange rates mean that it’s not a cheap car to buy (the Golf, unlike its sibling the Jetta, is built in Germany). After destination charges, the MSRP for the base 2-door Golf pushes $20,000 and that, in my opinion, is too much. The closest family hatchback competitors to the Golf in the US currently are the Mazda3 s, Subaru Impreza 2.5i, and Toyota Matrix 2.4L. The 2.5L Mazda3 is an excellent car with sportier handling, but it isn’t as fuel efficient as the VW and has somewhat cluttered styling, both inside and out. The base Impreza has all-wheel drive, but drinks fuel like water, accelerates slowly, and has build quality that pales in comparison to the Golf. The Matrix is less expensive and has more cargo room than the VW, but is extremely bland to drive and has huge blind spots (see the review of its twin, the Pontiac Vibe, on this blog). As such, given a choice between the four, I would pick the Golf or the Mazda3 if I were in the market for a family hatchback. However, considering that the Golf you really want is the GTI (which costs only a few grand more and has much more driving character), I’m afraid that the base 2.5L Golf tested here isn’t much of a value proposition and I’d steer towards the Mazda dealership instead.

Overall Rating: 3/5

Upshot: Practical, but pricey hatchback. A shining example of German precision engineering, but, like the sport, the Golf doesn’t excite your senses.

Cosmetically, the Altima Hybrid has exactly the same exterior styling as the 2.5S, save for the hybrid badges. On the inside, you still get the high quality plastics and easy-to-use stereo as the gas version, but some gauges and switchgear have changed. Specifically, an electric power gauge in kW replaces the tachometer, a battery charge gauge is placed side-by-side with the fuel level, and the manumatic shift mode on the gear lever is replaced by an electric motor engine brake mode. With regards to the power gauge, it seems a bit strange at first when you’re used to looking at a rev counter, but the use of a smooth, instant-power CVT transmission means that a tachometer is unnecessary. The battery charge gauge is pretty cool as you can see the needle rise when you brake or coast to a stop. Considering that the standard Nissan manumatic shift mode is set up the wrong way (push forward to shift up and pull back to shift down, like a VW), I didn’t really notice its absence. Additionally, given that this is a ~$27,000 car, automatic dual-zone climate control is standard, a nice convenience touch (it’s an option on the 2.5S).

When you open the hood and trunk though, it’s when the differences between the gas and hybrid Altimas becomes really apparent. Under the hood, a Toyota-built 40hp electric motor and hybrid powertrain are placed next to a 158hp version of the 2.5L Nissan engine (the version in the 2.5S makes 175hp). The standard lead-acid battery is placed in the trunk (like a BMW) along with a separate, much larger battery for the electric motor. Unfortunately, what this means is that the trunk space is only slightly larger than a Miata’s (you can barely fit two medium-sized suitcases) and the car is nearly 300 lbs heavier than its gas powered cousin.

In terms of driving impressions, the Altima hybrid handles much the same as the 2.5S. On the mountain roads of Southern California, the Altima Hybrid handled superbly for a front-wheel drive car, with nicely weighted, crisp steering. On the other hand, although steering was light at low speeds, the turning circle was quite large, making parking in narrow garages somewhat of a chore. The overall hybrid experience, however was disappointing.

When you first start up the Altima hybrid, it feels a bit disconcerting if you’re used to driving gas vehicles. There is no engine noise at all and it feels a bit odd when you set off without the engine turning (it only kicks in at around 20 mph or if you floor the pedal). The electric motor actually sounds pretty cool, much like the whine of a supercharger, and provides plenty of low-end grunt. However, the transition from purely electric to hybrid power is very rough indeed. When the gas engine kicks in, there is a judder as the car vibrates and lurches forward a bit. Additionally, the additional weight of the electric motor and the huge battery means that acceleration is blunted. The car labors a bit when passing trucks on the freeway, though the presence of the excellent CVT means that the kickdown is silky smooth. There’s no rubber-band effect and Nissan Xtronic technology rivals Volkwagen’s DSG gearbox in powertrain responsiveness. Indeed I had trouble driving a traditional slushbox Toyota, with its torque converter and its tendency to hunt for gears in the kickdown, after spending four days in the Nissan. But the worst part of the whole driving experience is the braking. In a hybrid car, regenerative technology recharges the batteries as you brake. However, in the Altima Hybrid this means that the brake pedal feels very spongy to use and braking feel is compromised. Furthermore, the low rolling-resistance tires used in the Altima Hybrid coupled with the extra weight mean that stopping distances are longer and you have to brake much earlier than you’re used to.

In conclusion, my views on the Altima Hybrid are mixed. I like how it looks like a gas powered Altima inside and out and retains most of the sporting character of the 2.5S. However, the fact that Nissan bought the hybrid drive-system essentially off-the-shelf from Toyota indicates that it was a rush job. The Altima Hybrid feels unpolished in its power transition from electric to gas, has too small of a trunk to be practical, is too heavy, and has poor braking performance. I would therefore take the regular gas-powered Altima 2.5S in a heartbeat.

Overall Rating: 2/5

Upshot: Nissan tries to make a hybrid sedan for daily driving with sporting potential, but comes up a bit short.

In traditional convertibles, a cloth or vinyl roof is deployed and retracted as necessary. Whether electric or hand operated, these “ragtop” convertibles offer a simple way of shielding yourself from the elements while driving. However, the ragtop also presents some drawbacks. First, ragtops are susceptible to wear and sensitive to build quality. An old or poorly assembled ragtop will often leak water and become a nuisance during nasty weather. Second, ragtops are also ripe targets for vandalism and theft. Without a hard roof, a thief can easily slash the roof and steal whatever you have in your car. This also leads to another problem: if your ragtop becomes torn or slashed, it is very difficult to repair the damage and a costly replacement roof is often the only option. Finally, on a subjective note, a deployed ragtop rather ruins the looks of a car. On every ragtop convertible, from the Ferrari F430 to the Ford Mustang, the raised cloth roof looks like a tent mounted over the driver and passengers. It just doesn’t fit in with the rest of the car aesthetically.

As a result, many manufacturers have now turned to a folding hardtop to address some of these issues. A folding hardtop has no fabric exposed to the elements, making it robust against harsh weather and vandals. In addition to this security, convertibles with folding hardtops generally look as good as their hardtop cousins; indeed I had to look very closely when I first saw a BMW 3-series convertible to distinguish it from the coupe version. However, the folding hardtop mechanism requires a complex network of motors and electronics to articulate the panels so that they fold properly into the trunk. All this equipment is very heavy and potentially unreliable. On this last point, consider the folding hardtop version of the Chrysler Sebring. The Sebring is already a car I wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot pole. It is hateful to drive, poorly built, and terribly unreliable. As a result, I’d rather hail a taxi or ride a bus than drive in a folding hardtop Sebring. If it started raining and I pressed the roof button, there would be a decent chance that the roof would go up part way vertically and then refuse to deploy fully or retract back down. I would therefore have to avoid low crossings with the roof protruding like the monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey while opening my door at stop lights to drain the bathtub that used to be the Sebring’s cabin. This also means that if it were to develop issues, the folding hardtop would cost an arm and a leg to repair, given the complex parts needed to make it function. As a result, it seems that open-top motoring is then a compromise at best.

Happily however, there is a solution in the form of the Targa top which was first seen on the Porsche 911T in the mid-1960′s. Throughout the 1970′s, it and its close sibling the T-Top were implemented throughout the auto industry in response to new rollover legislation. The basic Targa design calls for a reinforced A pillar, a B pillar with buttresses, and a removable roof section in the middle. The main advantage of a Targa top is that it doesn’t require the complex articulation mechanisms of a power ragtop or folding hardtop. Additionally, Targas don’t suffer as much weight gain as a normal convertible as the B pillar provides a degree of chassis stiffness in addition to its role as an integrated roll bar. The lightweight roof section often lifts out with only a flick of a lever and can usually be specified to be in either cloth or metal form. In the latter case, the Targa presents a security and durability advantage over the ragtop while avoiding the complex articulation mechanisms required by the folding hardtop. Finally, looking at the Ferrari 308 GTS to the right (the same model featured in Magnum PI), one can see that a Targa-equipped car looks great whether the roof is in or not.

It’s easy to see then that the Targa top is the best of both worlds. You get the thrill of having the wind in your hair and hearing the car’s exhaust note even more clearly when the roof’s off. At the same time you also are able to use the car everyday without fear of vandalism, water leaking through a tear in the fabric, or the roof mechanism malfunctioning. Small wonder then that many of today’s high-performance sports cars and supercars like the Lotus Elise, Chevrolet Corvette, and Porsche Carrera GT have Targa tops.

On the other hand, it must also be said that modern cars (which I define as cars built from model year 1990 onwards) are infinitely more reliable than their older siblings. In the old days, it was always assumed that cars broke down regularly; they were mechanically complex systems and something was bound to go wrong every now and then. Indeed, manufacturers often issued tool kits with their cars so that owners would not be stranded by the side of the road. In this aspect, progress brought on by the advent of the modern car is good for the enthusiast; you can go out for your weekend drive in your Miata or S2000 knowing that you won’t end up in a cloud of smoke on the hard shoulder. In some ways, even the hated “electronic nannies” are beneficial to the enthusiast. In the case of ABS, if a distracted driver pulls out in front of you on the freeway, you won’t run the risk of locking up your brakes and potentially totaling your M3. Additionally, traction control allows you to tackle wet and slippery conditions in your 5.0L Mustang without fear of spinning out.

But as we begin the second decade of the 21st century, these computer-governed vehicle systems are now raising eyebrows among safety activists, who ironically, were behind such systems in the first place. The recent recall debacle surrounding accelerator pedals has been partially blamed on the electronic throttle design of Toyota vehicles. In today’s vehicles, there are no mechanical linkages between the accelerator pedal and the engine throttle; instead the pedal is connected to the ECU which in turn controls whether the car accelerates or decelerates. The electronic throttle was devised in response to the widespread adoption of traction control, cruise control, and other technologies that require regulation of the torque output of the engine. This is because depending on the road conditions, the ECU will automatically adjust the engine power to compensate and this task is more reliably done with electronics than an actual mechanical throttle actuator. It remains to be seen whether or not a software error inside the ECU in conjunction with an electronic throttle could indeed cause unintended acceleration, but it is clear from the incidents that drivers are no longer as conscious of vehicle dynamics as they were at the end of the Cold War. These “electronic nannies” were designed to prevent drivers from getting into accidents, but instead have made cars into appliances and, in turn, their operators complacent about driving. Today’s drivers assume that their car’s 4-wheel-drive, power-vectoring traction control system will get them out of trouble automatically, but that’s clearly not the case. In the incidents cited in the Toyota recall, the drivers apparently were not cognizant of the fact that you can shift into neutral to disengage the engine from the transmission and thereby slow down even if the throttle is jammed wide open. Part of the problem may be that today’s gear levers are endlessly complicated and that it’s not obvious where the neutral position is. However, I think it may be mainly attributed to the fact that drivers are no longer taught effectively on when to engage neutral (a byproduct of the near ubiquity of automatic transmissions).

In the last 20 years, car design has come a long way. Today’s cars are more environmentally friendly, infinitely more reliable, and are safer overall. However, people’s driving skills have been negatively impacted by their over reliance on electronic assistants. Am I advocating a return to automotive antiquity where you needed to crank start your car and use a choke to regulate the engine fuel management? Of course not; I believe that the modern car in many ways allows the enthusiast to simply bask in the joy of driving and not have to endlessly tinker in the garage. What should happen is that people be taught proper vehicle control when obtaining a driver’s license. As a result, both driving habits and overall road safety should improve, two things that every car enthusiast would welcome with open arms.

So when did all this automotive homogeneity begin? Many believe that it began in the 1980′s, when Chrysler introduced the K-car and GM exploited badge engineering to the max (e.g.: Chevrolet Cavalier, Pontiac Sunbird, and Cadillac Cimarron). But I disagree with this viewpoint of history. Although these cars were very similar to each other, the automotive industry as a whole were still producing cars that had outrageous features and were an event to drive. It was during the 1980′s when Group B Rallying was founded, leading to homologation monsters like the Lancia 037, Ford RS200, and Ferrari 288GTO. These cars were essentially race cars for the road and manufacturers set about developing even more powerful production cars, such as the BMW M5, a regular 5-series sedan with the engine from the BMW M1 Procar slotted in.  The 1980′s were perhaps the best decade for supercars, with examples like the Porsche 959, Ferrari F40, Ferrari Testarossa, and Lamborghini Countach adorning the bedroom walls of teenagers. Even despite the prevalence of car platforms, mainstream cars still possessed quirks and special characteristics, showing that the decade was the last vestige of radical automotive design. The Nissan Maxima of the mid-1980′s had a KITT-esque “talking car” feature that would provide verbal warnings if something went wrong in the car and a stereo with equalizer sliders. The Chevrolet Corvette C4 had digital LCD gauges like a fighter plane glass cockpit and the Saab 900 was one of the first mainstream cars to have a turbo. The often-maligned K-cars were innovative in their efficient front-wheel drive design and Carroll Shelby even modified a plain-jane Dodge Omni into the fearsome Shelby GLHS (perhaps the first tuner hot hatchback).

Indeed, once 1990 rolled around, much of the individuality in cars was lost as the striking shapes of the 80′s were smoothed out to accommodate the crumple zones dictated by new safety laws. In many cases, this didn’t result in the flowing shapes of the 60′s, but instead boring shapes (though cars would mostly retain clean lines until the 2000′s). For instance, the attractive thin A-pillars and elegant steering wheels were replaced by thick roof reinforcements and large airbags. Furthermore, new CAD techniques were used to maximize aerodynamic efficiency, but in the process turning car design into a cookie cutter affair: it soon became a committee dictated, profit-maximizing, and consumer resistance-minimizing enterprise, rather than an art form. For example, 1990 saw the replacement of the Lamborghini Countach with the Diablo. The Diablo was a more powerful and better handling car, but it just didn’t look as outrageous as the Countach. Indeed, after buying Lamborghini, the management at Chrysler decided to smooth out the radical angular shape of the Diablo’s original design, rather than let the Bertone designer do what he wanted. The result was a car that had a similar rounded, somewhat obese profile to the other supercars of the 1990′s, the Jaguar XJ220 and the Ferrari F50, and didn’t give the impression of something truly special.

With the exception of niche cars like the McLaren F1 and Ariel Atom, cars made since 1990 aren’t very distinctive. The decade saw cars becoming more of an appliance than something to stir your senses. The amount of cheap plastic used in interiors rose exponentially to keep costs down and improve manufacturing efficiency, creating the notion of “disposable cars.”  Additionally, whereas the unveiling of the original futuristic Ford Taurus in 1986 caused a huge stir, auto show debuts of the 1990′s were mostly hum-drum affairs. Rather than spend money developing new sports cars and striking designs, the auto companies became complacent with building high-profit utilitarian SUV’s and minivans. Their sedan and coupe cousins followed along the same design ethos: if it’s reliable and comfortable, it doesn’t matter what the car looks like or feels like to drive, it’ll sell. The culmination of all this is the current trend for “crossover vehicles,” which are designed to be jacks of all trades, but end up being ugly to behold and even more hateful to drive.

That’s not to say that there aren’t beautiful cars in the post-Reagan world, though. The 1990′s Aston Martin DB7 is one of the prettiest cars ever made, with its clean, flowing lines. The DB7 is a pearl in a sea full of bland Camrys and even today it can still cause people to stare when it powers down the road. However, it’s obvious to me that the reason why the DB7 looks good is because it’s influenced by one of the most beautiful cars in history: the Jaguar E-Type. It’s designer, Ian Callum (who also shares my views that regulations have shackled the limits of car styling), stated that one of his favorite cars is the E-Type and it’s readily apparent that the DB7 shares the same overall proportions and long, smooth hood. The DB7 then is evocative of the retro movement that has permeated the auto industry since the early 1990′s.

The first companies to experiment with retro design were Japanese. The most famous example is the 1990 Mazda Miata MX-5, which was directly influenced by the 1960′s Lotus Elan, perhaps the greatest British roadster of all time. In comparing the two, the similarities are immediately evident. Both have pop-up headlights, a small-displacement inline-four, and a very lightweight chassis. Some accounts even say that Mazda engineers recorded the sounds that the Lotus gearbox made and ensured that the Miata’s copied them. Nissan designed a Micra-based coupe called the Figaro for 1991 which looked a lot like the Datsun Sports 2000 of the 1960′s. It had also produced the Be-1 and the Pao in the late 1980′s, cars that looked like the original Mini and Citroen 2CV, but weren’t properly retro as those cars were still being produced. The Americans were the ones to truly kick off the retro revolution however. The Dodge Viper of 1992 was designed by Carroll Shelby to reflect the old AC Cobra of the 1960′s with its huge engine and spartan cockpit while the Plymouth Prowler of 1997 was evocative of the old ’32 Ford hot rods. The new millennium sparked even more retro styling, as Ford built a new Thunderbird for 2002 that looked almost exactly the same as the one from the 1950′s and Chevrolet built the HHR to evoke memories of old 1940′s panel vans. Finally, the latest models of the Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, and Dodge Challenger have all been styled to look like the originals. Even with the modern features and safety technology, it is no question that the American car makers are nostalgic for their glory days from the late 1960′s and early 1970′s.

Although I do like many of these retro cars (especially the Miata, Mustang, and BMW Z8), I’m a bit saddened by this design movement within the auto industry. To me, it indicates that the current generation of auto designers has been so brainwashed by the “politically-correct” car design philosophy that began in the 1990′s. They were so busy creating boring variations on a bland theme that they can’t innovate anymore and are instead looking back to the designers of the baby boom generation, who produced beauties such as the Jaguar E-Type and Ford Mustang Fastback. Indeed, Ford chose to celebrate its 100th anniversary in 2003 not with a revolutionary new design, but by creating the Ford GT, a throwback to its most successful racing car, the GT40. The Ford GT is one of my favorite modern cars, but why couldn’t they produce something out of this world instead? Perhaps it’s because most car designers today are so inept that when they do decide to look forward, they instead turn out eyesores such as the Pontiac Aztek and the BMW 7 series.

To conclude, if I can draw an analogy to food, it is my hope that future car designs will be more like an exotic shrimp cocktail rather than a bland pile of grits. The last 20 years have been a boon for car technology, but a huge disappointment for car design. If car designers don’t wake up and change, we may see that the last year for proper classic cars is 1989, much like it is for good music.

As such, given the potential dynamic demerits, overweight nature, and increased possibility of injury in a rollover, many enthusiasts don’t bother with the convertible. Indeed, it is a widely held belief that convertibles are for sorority girls and poseurs; they are designed so that you can look good cruising down the Pacific Coast Highway rather than tackle sharp bends in Coldwater Canyon. And these anti-convertible advocates do have a point here: convertibles tend to be more ostentatious than their hardtop cousins as everyone can see you when you’re driving around town. If you drive around in a convertible Ferrari F430, you openly proclaim to the world that you have lots of money, whereas in a hardtop one, at least you can keep your midlife crisis to yourself.

Although I once agreed with all I’ve listed above, I’ve now come to the conclusion that enthusiasts should own convertibles, based on automotive history and my experience riding in a 1970 Ford Mustang convertible. In the early days of motoring, from the Daimler-Benz Motorwagen to the Ford Model T, most cars were convertibles. This was a natural step from the horse and buggy days, where the driver would always sit out in the open. As time went on, the cars that first adopted hardtops tended to be the luxury cars, such as the Bugattis, Cadillacs, and Cords. Sports and performance cars tended to be drop-tops, such as the Porsche Speedster, Austin-Healey, and Jaguar XK-120. Indeed, hardtop sports cars didn’t really come about until the 1960′s, where the advent of increased horsepower necessitated the additional structural rigidity of a hardtop. Additionally, in the early 1970′s, US safety legislation was coming close to outlawing convertibles due to the danger of a rollover, causing British Leyland to design the Jaguar XJ-S and the Triumph TR-7, cars that weren’t nearly as aesthetically pleasing as the Jaguar XK-E and the Triumph TR-6 roadsters that they replaced. It wasn’t until Mazda created the MX-5 Miata, with its reinforced windscreen, that open-top roadsters and convertibles began to make a comeback. Initially thought of as a girl’s car, the MX-5 quickly became an SCCA and driving enthusiast favorite, for its balanced rear-drive chassis, light weight, and smooth gear change. Indeed, Mazda engineers were inspired by the legendary Lotus Elan and Triumph Spitfire sports cars of the 1960′s in their sports roadster for the 1990′s.

This past summer, I had two very different motoring experiences. My first, a BMW 135i, has already been documented on this blog. It was a fantastic drive: a poised, balanced chassis with intoxicating power coming from the Bimmer’s twin-turbocharged 3.0L straight-six engine. The thing is though, the BMW is designed to be a luxury hard-top sports car, which makes it comfortable and serene for driving around town, but also means that your sense of speed in the car is diminished. On the freeway, 65mph feels more like 40mph and I often didn’t realize I was breaking the speed limit until I looked down at the speedo and saw that I was doing 85mph without even a shimmy in the chassis. The acceleration from the turbos is exhilarating, but once you let off, the car feels a lot more like the luxurious 3-series sedan on which its based. Additionally, the car handles beautifully through the bends, but you really have to push to the limits to have any sensation of driving excitement. As such, I know that if I owned this car, I wouldn’t have my driver’s license for much longer than a few months, as I would be constantly flooring the car to feel the twin-turbos catapult me up to illegal speeds and driving recklessly through the corners on Mulholland Drive to get a thrill.

Like the BMW, the Mustang also has a straight six engine, but being 30 years old, it has an asthmatic 3.3L unit that develops 120 hp. Additionally, the Mustang has a three-speed slushbox, a live rear axle, 4 non-power assisted drums, and a vinyl interior, as opposed to the six-speed Steptronic, M-Sport tuned suspension, extra-large BMW discs, and rich Boston Red leather interior in the BMW. I should also remark that cars designed from the start as convertibles (e.g.: Honda S2000) have always been better options than those that were designed as coupes, and then had their tops cut off (e.g.: BMW M3 Convertible). Due to the extra weight and loss of rigidity, the convertible Mustang will never handle as well as its fastback stablemate (Mustangs were originally designed to be hardtops). Despite all this, I didn’t care- the ride in the Mustang, in contrast, to the BMW, was a thrill at any speed, even 35 mph down Hawthorne Blvd in Torrance. With the top down and the wind in your hair, you get a raw and unadulterated driving experience as you can see the whole world around you and can hear the engine exhaust note even more clearly. The sensation of speed is doubled: 30 mph feels like you’re going 60 mph, which means that you can have loads of fun without collecting points on your license. As such, one can only imagine how terrifying and exciting it was to drive a Shelby Cobra in the 1960′s, with its open-top cockpit and a 427 cu in V8 engine under the hood.

Given that technological improvements in automotive engineering have largely cured the cowl shake problems of old convertibles and reduced the weight of the added safety components through new materials, I highly recommend a convertible to all enthusiasts. Who cares if you look like you’re having a mid-life crisis? With the top down, you’re more in tune with the road and the vehicle, making the activity of driving much more pleasurable. Additionally, as the convertible feels fast at all speeds, you don’t have to spring for an expensive, fuel-hungry V8 engine upgrade to get you thrills. In conclusion, a convertible seems to be the ultimate enthusiast’s ride: you can have fun at legal speeds and spend more time driving than in the gas station.