Jeep Compass Euro NCAP ratings - 2 stars

Euro NCAP recently published their crash test results for the 2012 Jeep Compass - scoring a lowly 23% overall and an overall crash safety score of just 2 stars. This raises and interesting point: in this day and age when vehicles regularly get 4 and 5 star ratings (it's almost routine), it would seem a manufacturer would have to go out of their way to build a vehicle this poor. Chrysler must have known it would perform badly from early on in the design process. The design software used to do stress analysis on CAD designs would have shown up the failure before a single robot had touched a piece of sheet metal. Yet it would seem they carried on and manufactured the Compass anyway, which speaks volumes about how much contempt Chrysler has for its customers. Bear in mind they're one of the manufacturers who went cap-in-hand to the Bush regime looking for a bailout. In Chrysler's case it was $12.5bn (yes, with a "B") - a deal that ultimately cost the taxpayers $1.3bn in lost costs. You'd think given their patchy history, Chrysler would be a little more careful with their products but it seems they have learned nothing. Not only is the Compass just plain ugly (and trust me, having owned two Honda Elements, I'm well qualified to talk about ugly vehicles), but now it turns out it's less than stellar in a crash. The real question now is how much will it sell? Jeep die-hards will likely overlook the Euro NCAP ratings and buy one anyway, but people who do their research and put stock and trust in the ratings of agencies like Euro NCAP, the IIHS or the NHTSA will steer well clear of it.
Another interesting point to note : the IIHS haven't rated the 2012 Compass and the NHTSA have only rated it for rollover, not crash safety. The last time either organisation tested it for crash performance was 2007 where it scored 4 and 5 stars. How is it possible that the scores in the US are so high and those in Europe are so low? Is it because of design changes between 2007 and 2012 (it's been made worse) or is it because of differences in the testing processes? Jeep Compass Euro NCAP 2 star crash rating

EPA Approves E15 petrol for the USA

Back in February 2011, the US House overwhelmingly voted to block the sale of E15 fuel in America. For the uninitiated, E15 is a version of petrol that is blended with ethanol - in this case 15% ethanol. The argument for E15 fuel is that it will help reduce the US's dependence on foreign oil. However it comes with a downside - it's corrosive and will only work in some vehicles sold after 2007 - earlier models will have problems with the seals and fuel lines. (The EPA claim the restriction is for vehicles sold after 2001). In addition, it reduces the overall efficiency of internal combustion engines. Because E15 has less energy per volume than E10 (what we're forced to use right now) and just plain old petrol, that translates to lower gas mileage. Lower gas mileage results in more fill-ups which means more money for the big oil companies. Many car manufacturers have gone so far as to say that if you do use E15, you'll void your factory warranty on fuel-line components and the engine itself.
If you prefer not to use the current E10 blend (and who would blame you), you can find a list of gas stations near you (if you live in the US) that still sell unpolluted petrol. I know in my current VW, when I run it on unblended premium, I get an average 2.5mpg more than with E10 and the engine runs a lot smoother. Find the list here, but be warned it gets smaller by the day: Pure gas. You can read the EPA press release on E15 here: EPA approves E15 gasoline.

Daytime running lights - yet another problem.

If you've read my blog for any length of time you'll know one of my biggest pet hates on modern cars is daytime running lights - DRLs. They're mandated in Canada and parts of the US, and now Europe is getting in on the action. The argument used is that they make cars more visible in the daytime and thus reduce accident rates, but this has proven to be untrue both through statistical analysis and actual accident reporting. In the case of motorbikes it actually is true but that's because bikes are smaller and easily overlooked by car drivers, and having a headlight on helps draw attention to them. For cars, it makes no difference. In fact, for road users in general, DRLs make driving more dangerous. For motorbikes, it has made them invisible again because now motorbike headlights are lost in a sea of car headlights. For other road users, we now all have to put up with badly aligned headlights shining into our eyes at all times of day and night, and whilst it's not as intrusive in the daytime, it certainly is unnecessary. But the real gotcha here is, once again, what it does to the drivers themselves. Once people get used to DRLs being on all the time, they naturally assume that when the lights are on, the lights are on. But they're not - not all of them. Proper DRLs are what we used to call parking lights, or sidelights - low wattage bulbs designed to help be seen, rather than to see by. Fake DRLs (like what you'll find on so many cars now) are simply the low-beam main headlights being forced on. In all cases though, DRLs do NOT turn on any other lights. Now picture the scenario when you hit bad weather, especially on a motorway. All the drones see the poor visibility but think "I'm fine - my daytime running lights are on". Great - but those are low-wattage lights at the front, and importantly - nothing at the rear, meaning essentially that their cars are now completely invisible in the sort of heavy spray you get in rain on a motorway. And because everyone's been fooled into thinking that their lights are on, the very last thing on their mind is to actually turn their lights on using the controls provided for them in their cars. The same is true for foggy conditions, and dusk and dawn conditions. Millions of cars, driving around basically completely unlit because their drivers have been lulled into a false sense of security by the lunacy of daytime running lights.
Ban them. Ban them now. Or if they can't be banned, do what I did and hack your car to turn them off. In my car, when my light switch is in the 'off' position, it now actually means my lights are off. Instead of partly on.
"But Chris", I can hear you typing, "that's why we have auto lights!"
Don't get me going on auto lights again. I've already blogged about that particular issue before. If you're truly incapable of doing something as simple as turning the lights on when the conditions demand it, you really have no place driving a car.

Used cars

Following on from last week's post about the pitfalls of buying a new car, this week I'm talking about used cars. So you don't have cash running out of your pockets, you don't want the depreciation hit and you simply can't afford a new car. Big deal - millions of other people are in the same boat as you. My first 5 or 6 cars were all used cars and in reality more people buy used than new so how do you steer around the minefield that is the used car market? There's a few options nowadays - used car lots, manufacturer used car programs, auctions, ex-rental cars and ex-fleet cars. Manufacturer programs are pretty good - you'll pay a premium for them but they normally come with some form of guarantee. Used car lots are THE place to get a good price but you'll almost always be buying without any warranty so the onus is on you to make sure you know as much about the car as you can before you drive off with it. If it breaks once you've driven off, you're pretty much on your own. Auctions are interesting but you'll be competing with car dealers looking to buy stuff to re-sell and if you're not careful you'll end up paying over the odds because you'll get carried away with the whole atmosphere. My tip for this would be to go and look at ex-fleet and ex-rental cars, and I'll tell you why. Fleet cars (corporate or company cars) are maintained to within an inch of their life. Anying - anything that needs attention gets sorted out quickly so whilst the mileage will be high, the car ought to be in bloody good condition. And high mileage isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd sooner buy a used car with 60,000 motorway miles on it than 10,000 city miles because the engine will have been humming along mostly in a low-stress state and will be nicely bedded in (most engines don't properly loosen up until about 30,000 miles anyway). Ex-fleet cars typically also come with a 3 month warranty on most things - not as comprehensive as a new manufacturer one but better than nothing. Ex-rental cars are something you might have never considered. Surely rental cars are beaten half to death, right? Again, generally speaking if anything goes wrong, the rental company gets it fixed pretty quickly. The mileage will be low - most rental cars are sold off after 20,000 miles or less. The car will have been driven by many drivers, not just one so there won't be any unusual wear and tear that can result from a single person with peculiar habits driving around for a couple of years. Best of all, ex-rental cars normally come with a 12 month warranty, and will normally come with fresh oil, fresh coolant, new tyres and if it has an automatic gearbox, fresh transmission fluid. If the brakes are more than 50% worn, they'll typically come with new brakes too. Those are all the bits that count and getting new stuff there is worth it. The downside is that the car will be a little beaten up. The interior won't be in the best condition and the bodywork will have scratches, dings and dents on it from parking-lot door dents to scratches on the roof where people have put bags and stuff up there then dragged them off.
When it comes to the price for a used car, the same holds true as does for new cars. You MUST do your research first. There are dozens of used car price evaluators around on the interwebs that will guide you as to what the car is worth. You'll be able to figure out roughly how much the dealer paid when they bought it either from auction or in a trade, and from that you'll be able to decide for yourself how much to pay. Again - as with new cars, if you come across a dealer that won't play ball, walk away. There are dozens of other dealers and thousands of other used cars.

New or used?

If you've ever bought a car (and hopefully if you're reading my site, you have) you'll have always come that point in your decision as to whether to buy new or used. New is nice - you get a shiny new toy, unsullied by any other driver. You take it in the pants on depreciation though - the second the ink dries on the contract of sale, you lose 30% of the value. Used means you don't have the depreciation problem but you have the uncertainty of the car's history. So what are the pitfalls and benefits of both? This week I'll deal with new cars. Next week we'll look at used.
The biggest pitfall of a new car is that the dealer will see money signs floating all around you and will attempt to get you to buy an extended warranty and pay top dollar for the car. The extended warranty is a complete no-no unless it's a manufacturer extension AND you're planning to keep the car for 5 years or more. But what about the price? A new car is expensive, right? Yes, but don't ever pay what the dealer is asking or you're a fool, and you know the saying about a fool and their money. So how do you get a good deal on the price? Research is the answer. Here in the US, there are companies like Consumer Reports and FightingChance that offer new car pricing reports. It's been a while since I lived in the UK so I don't know if there are places there that do the same thing, but these are well worth the money you'll spend on them - typically less than $20. But you need to buy them very close to when you're ready to commit to the sale because they contain information that is normally only relevant for a couple of weeks. They'll contain info on what the various deals are in place for dealers around the country (special financing rates, cashback deals etc), as well as the holdback amount. Holdback is what the dealer is paid by the manufacturer for every sale, and it's why when you buy "below invoice" the dealer still makes money. Most importantly, these reports will tell you what the true invoice price is - how much the dealer paid for the car you're about to buy from them. Knowing this, and knowing the holdback amount, you can normally beat a dealer down in price. For example when I bought a Honda Element in 2009, the sticker price was $24,070. The pricing report I bought showed that the Honda invoice to my dealer was $22,398, that the dealer would get a $1,200 holdback and that for another 13 days, there was a dealer incentive to sell Elements that resulted in Honda corporate giving them an additional $900 per vehicle sold. Finally it also showed that the dealers could go as low as 1.1% on finance rates (whereas they would only advertise 2.9%). What does all that mean? If I'd walked on to the dealer lot and paid $24,070 and taken out a 2.9% loan, they'd have known I was a total idiot. (Only idiots go and buy a new car "on impulse"). Between the documentation fees, the markup, the holdback and the manufacturer incentive, the dealer would have made $4,022 profit which is insane in this day and age. Over the life of the loan I would have paid $1200 in interest. Because I knew how much they were getting back from Honda, and because I knew the loan rates they could do, I actually walked out the door having paid $20,500 with a loan that only cost me $357 in interest. Honda corporate made $200 off me, and the dealer made zero off me but ultimately received $2,100 in profit from Honda.
See how it works? Research is absolutely the key, and if you get a stubborn dealer who thinks it's still the nineties and tries to bully you into paying stupid money with high pressure sales tactics, just walk out. There are plenty of other dealers who will work with you on a decent price and very often you'll find a dealer who appreciates that you've done your homework because it means a quick sale to you with very little messing about and they can then get on an roll another punter once you've left.
Of course the downside of that story is that the instant I turned the key in the ignition, the car depreciated to $14,350 but that's why next week's post is about used cars.

Driver education

Following on from last week's post about self-driving cars, it occurs to me that the true solution to the driving "problem" isn't increasing the number of interfering driving "aids" that are put in cars. We don't need ABS, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning systems, blind spot cameras and all the other nonsense. What we need is proper driver education and regular re-testing, enforced with steep fines. The education would cost, as would the re-testing, and the fines would be steep enough to cover some costs whilst at the same time being a disincentive for people to re-offend. Look at other more enlightened countries - especially those in Scandinavia where it takes a year or more to do the driving education course and drivers are required to know how to handle their cars in terrible road conditions (snow, ice, rain), at night, in towns and on freeways, at many different speeds. Compare that to the joke of a driving education and testing system in America where driving licences are handed out like candy and you can be legally blind and still have a licence. The statistics bear out the education argument too. Sweden has one sixth the casualty and accident rate of the US per capita. Germany has one third. Most European countries have at least half the rate the US does if not more. (Countries by traffic-related deaths)
The problem is the culture of inclusion, where a car is treated as a right instead of a privilege. Society today is afraid to tell people that they've failed at something so instead we try to ensure that everyone gets a driving licence and then we deal with the consequences of this flawed policy by loading cars up with all manner of gadgets in an attempt to keep people safe. Now don't get me wrong - seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones and side impact bars I believe should be (and for the most part already are) mandatory in every car sold today. These are all mechanisms to help you out as a Hail Mary. But to put all the other things into vehicles that we see nowadays is irresponsible of the manufacturers because it lulls drivers into a false sense of security. People aren't trained but instead are led to believe by the manufacturers that their car will effectively save them from their own stupidity. Look: when you're driving 2 tons of steel, it needs to be treated with respect and attention, and education is the only way to get people to understand that. All you need is to see one good snowy day to realise how much drivers have been misled into believing they're safe in their vehicles. Look at the video below - not one of the cars is steering the right direction, trying to counteract the skids, or has even a single wheel rotating. I can tell you what's going on in every one of these cars; the driver has both hands on the wheel, pulling it towards them with as much force as possible whilst standing on the brake pedal with both feet (probably with their eyes closed). The results are predictable, and ultimately the end product of a system where we've elevated the value of driver "aids" at the exclusion of actual driver eduction. In this case the worst decision these drivers made was attempting to drive on a street that was patently undrivable in the first place. Believing their driver aids would save them coupled with a badly misplaced understanding of their own skill is what you see here.
Enjoy the video. It was taken not 10 miles from where I live, in a state where we deal with snow for three months every year.