Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve received two bits of very disappointing news from two different European car brands, and I haven’t posted in awhile, so I figured I’d share.
First off, Volkswagen, the hallmark of affordable, yet brilliant, German engineering, doesn’t seem follow the “make a car better every year” philosophy that every other brand does.
Given the recent engine/transmission problems of my Crown Vic, the fact that it’s still not back to 100%, and its utterly abysmal fuel economy (normally not a factor in vehicle purchases, nor do I plan for it to be, but damn, < 12mpg hurts), I’ve started idly thinking about replacing it. And, since I’m still working on/hoping for a real-paying job, I’ve been toying with the idea of making my next vehicle the first brand-new car anyone in my family has had in almost 20 years. Problem is, I’m probably the pickiest person ever when it comes to cars, and my biggest factor when buying a car is uniqueness; whether that comes from distinctive features, interesting history, or just general rarity. Basically, if I see a car more than once every couple of days, I don’t want it, because a car is a LOT more than just a transportation tool for me, and I want something I’m going to take pride in driving. Other factors include comfort, appearance/design (another area where I have peculiar tastes), performance (the definition of this depends on what the vehicle is built to do), and reliability, in that order.
So, I’ve been looking at the Volkswagen Eos. It’s a cute little two-door convertible, with a hard-top, and a huge sunroof. It’s very distinctive, I’ve never seen one in person, it looks very beautiful both inside and out (in my opinion), and it looks like it’d be lots of fun to drive, without being uncomfortably tiny like a Miata or Z3. Now, the Eos currently comes with two different engines. The base engine is a 2.0L turbo that has oil burning problems after 5,000-15,000 miles, and has very notable turbo lag, causing it to feel very underpowered at low RPM. Oh, and it requires 93 octane gas at an absolute minimum, which is very hard to find around here. Then, there’s the 3.2L V6 that’s naturally aspirated, used on several Audi models, less picky about fuel, more powerful, and nearly identical in fuel economy (19/30 for the 2.0, 19/26 for the 3.2, both a significant improvement over what I have now). It doesn’t burn oil, it doesn’t have the complexity of factory turbos, and it’s an overall superior engine that’s better suited to the car.
Now, for the disappointing part. For the 2009 model year, VW is making some significant changes to the Eos. They’re phasing out the 3.2L engine entirely, replacing the 2.0 with a different 2.0 turbo that’s only marginally improved (if at all), removing fog lights (WTF?), and removing some wheel options. The only positive improvements they’re making are to make the fancy-schmancy adaptive HID headlights available as an option on all packages, and upgrading the navigation system. I can understand changing the options around, because the V6 model had a ton of exclusive options that weren’t available on the others, but phasing out the engine entirely is just unacceptable to me, and the alleged reason they did it (improve average fuel mileage numbers across all models) seems rather ridiculous, considering the miniscule difference between the two.
==========================================
Disappointment #2 comes from Ford, or more specifically, their recent plans to sell Jaguar and Land Rover. This doesn’t affect me directly, since any Rover I get would be too old to matter, but I’ve always really liked both brands, and the rich history/prestige associated with them. Unfortunately, neither company has been particularly profitable, so they tend to get bought and sold a lot.
When Ford acquired Jaguar, and then Land Rover, I wasn’t overly thrilled, since Ford isn’t exactly the pinnacle of luxury (I couldn’t think of a non-offensive analogy to illustrate this, so use your imagination). But, they’ve been around for over a century, and they at least have half a clue about how to build a nice car (see: Lincoln Towncar), so I figured they’d be able to do some good things with both nameplates.
Well, just a couple years after buying Land Rover, Ford is now selling both it and Jaguar. Unfortunately, neither company has shown significant improvement since the Ford acquisition, so all of the corporations higher on the “ladder” than Ford aren’t interested. Who does that leave? The trashiest car company big enough to afford it: Tata Motors.
This company is based in India, and their primary markets cover the middle east, southeast asia, and parts of africa. They sell a large volume of heavy-hauler trucks, and apparently those don’t suck nearly as bad as their passenger models, which list “low fuel indicator” as a feature, and airbags are a luxury option. Now, I admit, there’s nothing inherently wrong with selling dirt-cheap cars that rival the Yugo in “features”, developing countries need that niche to be filled, and a lot of people in the US and Europe would buy a car that falls apart after 100,000 miles if it was $6,000 new. But, this is not the kind of company that should be making $80,000 luxury cars and SUVs, even if it’s indirect. I shudder to think what will happen to engineering masterpieces like the Jaguar XK-R with the brand under the control of a company that can’t even keep up with other current-year econoboxes. Tata’s current-year 4-door sedan (the nicest of their passenger cars) isn’t even equipped comparably to a late-90s Honda Civic, let alone something currently on the market.
Sad.