Toyota Corolla iM

time for another post, here it is,

The Toyota Corolla iM

(credit: caranddriver.com)

To start, it isn't really a Corolla. It's on a Corolla-ish platform that has a four inch shorter wheelbase,  and it isn't a sedan. It's not really even a Toyota. It really is the Scion iM, just rebadged as a Toyota because Toyota discontinued Scion last year. What's worse is that the iM is the replacement for the xB, which is basically just a toaster with wheels.

It has one trim level. The Trabant 601 had multiple trim levels! I find this one trim level business quite odd, because most hatchbacks have about four million trim levels. It has about as many horsepower as trims, so it's not exactly fast.

The performance is down compared to its competitors. The slightly more expensive Ford Focus hatch does 0-60 in 8.5 seconds Slow, but it is definitely not a performance car, and doesn't have a rakish, "sporty" body. The iM does 0-60 in 9.1 seconds. .6 of a second is years in car terminology. The Ford also makes 160 horsepower. Once again, a bit underpowered, but the iM has just 137 ponies working as hard as they can to pull it along. Even if you aren't interested in performance, it is useful to have a bit more power than you need, because it will make a difference in merging and setting off at the stoplight.

What's worse is that this car will be errm... how do I put this nicely... modified distastefully. I'm talking about how neon green alloys with 45 degrees of negative camber will be installed, and how the car will be made to ride two inches off the ground. Not to mention the horrible body kits and spoilers that will be purchased. Dubious performance modifications aside, the iM automatic has a fatal flaw.

The flaw in question is a CVT. It stands for Continuously Variable Transmission. It is basically two cones with a belt attaching them together. It essentially gives you infinite gears, as the belt can move around on them, effectively gearing the car up and down. However, it basically just makes the car sound a bit like a yodeling cow inside (i.e. it sounds like: MoooOOoooooOOOooooooOOOOOOOOoo). CVT's are also much more prone to breaking compared to a regular synchromesh standard-shift or auto.

So, the Corolla iM. It is really a Scion, it has one trim level, about as many horsepower, will be a target for "stancing" and "moos" inside.

Do you have any thoughts about cars/cats? What drives you crazy? One post a week so stay tuned!

Honda CR-V

'bout time for another post, here it is,

The Honda CR-V

(shop.honda.com)
OK, reason number one that I reeeely don't like the CR-V is because it is a crossover. I find it weird that someone thought: I want to take a car that thinks it is a subcompact (a Honda Civic), but really is a small mid-size car, jack it up, and put an SUV looking body on top of it all.

The CR-V also has a continuously variable transmission, which is basically two cones with one side attached to the engine, and the other cone, to the prop-shaft. Between the cones, there is basically a large belt that moves around a lot, giving you infinite ratios. This sounds great for fuel efficiency and good get-up-and-go, but what it really does is make a lot of  mooing noises and break a lot. The engine the transmission is linked to isn't great, either.

The most powerful engine, a 1.5 liter turbo, makes 190 horsepower. That would probably be enough for a Civic, but the CR-V has put on a bit of weight (394 pounds, to be exact). The comparison between the 0-60 times of a Civic and a CR-V are quite astonishing. Here are the facts and figures: the Si Civic goes from 0-60 in 6.3 seconds. Not bad. The CR-V of the same price, however, lumbers from a standstill to sixty in 7.5 seconds (this is the AWD one, the front drive version would be slower (and $1,300 cheaper), but I can't get a time.) The performance may be bad, but the looks are worse.

I find those optional robot wheels HIDEOUS! They are as bad, if not worse than the Hyundai Veloster's wheels. This over-styled-ness seems to continue around the entire car, a good example being the headlights, which look like Star Trek control panels of some kind. The taillights are much the same deal. They are all lumpy and bumpy, which you can see if you look at the picture closely.

So, the CR-V. Slow, expensive, ugly, loud, and driven primarily by people who want a Suburban, but can't fit it in their garage.

Do you have any thoughts about cars/cats? What drives you crazy? One post a week so stay tuned!

Acura Integra

time for another post, here it is,

The Acura Integra

(credit: commons.wikimedia.org)

Where to start? It was one of those barely sports cars made in Japan in the '90s. What's worse than its fake sporting credentials (the biggest engine was a 1.8 liter) is that the Integra was a Honda Civic underneath.

There is a slight issue with the styling.  The front fascia looks like one of those hideous multi-eyed bugs. Also, the body lines of the fenders don't really line up with the the side of the car. So it looks like it has fender flares at the front, but not at the back.

The engines weren't great, either. The most powerful version, the Type R made 195 horsepower. The (equally hideous) Toyota Celica of the same time period had a 2.0 liter Turbo that made 251 horsepower, for $4,000 more than the Acura. $4,000 is a lot of money, but the Celica Turbo All-Trac had AWD, a turbocharger, and was a rally homologation car. With the Acura, you get an Acura badge.

So, the Acura. Slow, not a sports car, and hideous!

Do you have any thoughts about cars/cats? What drives you crazy? One post a week so stay tuned!

Chevrolet Spark

'bout time for another post, here it is,

The Chevrolet Spark

(credit: caranddriver.com)

The people that buy this car obviously aren't interested in 0-60 times, but I'm pretty sure the salesmen at the dealership don't advertise the appalling 12 seconds that it takes to get the car to 60. Or the fact that the Spark makes 98 horsepower.

Even though it is the size of a toaster, the Spark has 10 airbags! At that point, there must be airbags for your eyelashes and toenails!

The Spark also comes in a electric version, too. The electric version might be economical with gas mileage, but the drivetrain needs to be replaced every six or seven years, if driven normally (letting the battery go flat, using fast charging stations). On a related note, in the battery there is nickel, and nickel mining is a filthy operation that causes a lot of acid rain. Also in the battery, there is deadly deadly cadmium which is famous for being in old yellow paint, and poisoning artists. In the electric motor, there is neodymium. Neodymium is very energy consuming to extract.

The rear brakes are drum brakes! This is 2017, and there is a car with brakes from the 30's! What's worse is that because there is no asbestos in the rear brakes, they won't work as well as the drum brakes from yesteryear.

It gets 39 MPG. That isn't really shocking considering that the engine is a 1.4 four-cylinder, attached to a car that weighs about two pounds. What's worse is that you can't capitalize on this because of the nine gallon fuel tank. Sure, it gives you a good range of 358 miles, but if it had a normal capacity fuel tank, it could go 716 miles on one tank!

The spark also comes with a CVT. This makes it sound like they're filming an episode of Bonanza! under the hood (i.e. lots of MOOOoooooOOOooooooooo). This is because instead of gears, there is a belt being moved around on two cones using the same principle of  shifters moving a bicycle chain around.

So, the Spark. Slow, electric, bad brakes, and doesn't make good use of its fuel sipping ways.

Do you have any thoughts about cars/cats? What drives you crazy? One post a week so stay tuned!