In a message dated 12/6/00 2:39:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Toby@intri-plex.com writes:
> As much as we love the quirks of our British cars, There is something to be
> said about current vehicles. The original author was trying to show that how
> he thought his car was alive and he never felt alone when he was driving it.
> But the same can be said with any car you work on and know the ins and outs.
> Even my old reliable land cruiser feels this way. It is not only British
> vehicles that have a spirit. I must say though that in modern cars, that are
> hardly unique, it still proves true, to a much lesser degree. Car owners and
> enthusiasts always treat their cars as so. My soon to be brother-in-law with
> his very new Tundra likes to floor it from time to time to "stretch out her
> legs". Perhaps it is because some of us don't know exactly how their smarts
> work that we don't appreciate new vehicles. After I took my auto electronics
> class, I had a whole new look on modern cars. The amount of engineering and
> work in them is mind-boggling compared to our Spridgets. This is probably
> one of the very reasons that we like our cars, the simplicity of all the
> systems independently working together to get you from point A, to B.
> Today's systems are so inter-linked electronically to make them "work
> better" that I would say %95 of drivers have no idea what is pulling them
> forward and moving them around town AND have no idea of the workings behind
> their climate controlled leather interior. Not only to people not know what
> is going on, but they have NO desire to know. Sometimes I try to explain how
> my sister's cell phone works to her, but hey eyes just glaze over and she
> starts dialing. I am really sad for them. Advertisements for new cars purely
> show the looks and sometimes performance of the vehicle without one thought
> on instructing anybody on how they actually work. They like to throw around
> buzz words like like VTECH and VVT-i but without even trying to explain
> them. When I was looking for an AUDI for my mother, the sales man was quick
> to point out that this vechile had the quattro option. I asked himn about
> it, since I had heard so much about it. He knew NOTHING on it. No brochures,
> no nothing. Even the mechanics were dumbfounded. But this model did have it,
>
The system on my S4 is mechanical, with 75% of power going up front and 25%
going to the rear until the fronts start to lose traction. Then it can go as
far in the other direction as 75% rear, 25% front. Alas, it also has a neat
little lighted switch that, when pressed, magically locks the rear diff up to
22 mph. And really comfy heated seats, too! And a built-in
voice-recognition hands-free cell phone that kills the radio volume when you
ask it to call someone! (I more or less got all that info from the owners
manual.)
How does all that stuff work? I don't know but, more importantly, I don't
care. If I want to drive a car that I basically understand (and I use the
term "understand" in the loosest possible fashion here), I drive the Bugeye
or the TR. But if I absolutely, positively have to be there, I use the S4.
And note the terms I just used off the cuff for operating those cars: "drive"
the Brits, "use" the S4.
I had a 93 Honda Prelude Si for one year -- I sold it because it was the best
handling, quickest little no fun car I ever had. In fact, I have yet to
drive a Japanese car that I really enjoyed. They just seem to lack soul.
Very efficient, precise, reliable appliances, but no more.
My newest theory on all this (as if any of you give a rat's rear), is that
it's not the complexity per se that makes modern cars less "soulful" than the
oldsters -- it's the fact that some cars just seem to be living, breathing
things that communicate with their owners (like dogs) and some just seem to
be soulless appliances (like cats).
Let the flaming begin!
Chris
59 Bugeye
59 TR3A
(ex) 71 MG Midget
93 Audi S4 TQ
|