New Cars 2012: Mercedes CLS

I really liked Mercedes' first generation CLS. It was honestly one of those cars I hated to admit liking, because so many auto enthusiasts chastised it for being ugly; it was named the banana Benz for its upside down banana-esque profile. As with the old car, people chastise this new car as being bland. To a point, I agree. While it certainly doesn't hit onlookers in the face with its roundy-round styling, it does scream Mercedes. Quite. Mercedes' new design direction bowed earlier with the unreasonably square (and almost last generation Hyundai Sonata) styling, especially towards the tail end. Onlookers who weren't possessed with car ID skills would be quick to dismiss it as a Mercedes.
The new CLS is no different. Like its forebear, this new car shares almost nothing with Mercedes design language save for the badge on the grille. Is that a bad thing, though? Not really. With the E-class looking bland to some, (the sedan's grown on me a bit, I will admit) and the ML class looking godawful, and the C-Class having a decidedly sporty look to it, one could argue that Mercedes doesn't have a cohesive design language.
Out front, the CLS greets you in typical big-starred "Hi, I'm a Mercedes, give me your money" fashion, with its gaping, wide grille. The Mercedes-ness continues down the side wit the same "flanks" that have been applied to the new E-Class. Said to resemble Benzes of yesteryear, I find that little kink is the side to be nothing but a breakup of an otherwise bland profile--and it works. I know I will likely get chewed up for this remark, but that little feature does hark back on Mercedes' rich heritage. Where I take issue with the new car the most, is the taillights. I'm getting really tired of this two tone outer-inner crap. While it worked on 2008's Maserati Gran Turismo, it shouldn't be applied to every damn production car that gets churned out. Okay, so the taillights would look a bit blander and less interesting. So? Taillights shouldn't make or break the car.
Since I hadn't gotten to sit in a new CLS as of these pictures, I would love to try it out. I whined and whined a lot about the outgoing car, and how it probably sucked inside, and boy was I wrong. I absolutely fell in love with after I sat in it and took it all in. Maybe I'm just getting my hopes up, but I suspect the new car will get the same reaction from me.

Minneapolis Street Sighting: Porsche 924S

Porsche-- it means exclusivity, performance, and speed, right? Well, with the 924, a buyer did indeed acquire all three of those. Exclusivity? Yep. Just wait till the rear wheelwells rust out. Parts are a bear to find, but it'll at least be guaranteed that when fixed, your 924 will likely be the only one in your neighborhood. Performance? With a VW Beetle-based four, not much was there, but it was adequate enough to plop the Porsche crest on the hood. Speed? Yes, the 924 was indeed available with both a five speed manual. Oh.. that's not what you meant? My bad.
Anyway, the Porsche 924 was introduced in 1975 to replace the cult-loved 914. Instead of having a traditional rear-based engine, the 924 (and 944 and 968) had a front engine/rear drive layout. Whether this was due to non-enthusiasts complaining about haphazard driving in inclement weather, I'll never know. What is known, however, is that 924S differed from its earlier brethren. Instead of offering the crappy 95-110 horse version of the Audi four, it came with the same 2.5 as the later (and somewhat more expensive) 944 cars. Although the engine made 165 horses in the 944, it was detuned to a more meager 150. While not awful by any means, surely its less than expected from a company known for performance. For the 924, not much of said "item" was there.
Most people loathe the 924 for the main reason I discussed above. As odd as a car geek I am, I have a love/hate relationship with the cars. I have liked the 944 since I was little, but as I get older, I tend to favor "first iterations" of a car more. As goes with the philosophy, I am starting to get an acquired taste to the 924 more and more.
This example was not perfect-- far from it to be honest. While it does appear to be mostly intact, there is evidence of a quick repaint, especially on the wheels. While I do watch Wheeler Dealers, and generally respect what they do, I couldn't help feeling that the owner got his idea of black spraypainted wheels from that show. Okay, so the black painted wheels aren't terrible by any means, they're not quite what I would do. I would honestly put the teledials common on 944s and 928s on this example. Cliche Porsche wheels, I know, but I like them. And I think they'd do this car wonders.

Minneapolis Street Sighting: MINI Cooper

Again, I'm breaking my rule for modern cars, but dammit I've liked these since they were new. I should probably admit that I am sort of a sucker for "retro done right" if you will. Yes, the design of the R53 BMW Mini is modern, but clearly one can see the heritage that comes into play here. From the traditional grill and hood stripes, to the thin taillights and fold down "trunk", this new Mini really harks back to the early days of what Alec (Alexander) Issigonis created. He wanted a cheap, front wheel drive, lightweight, practical car for the masses, that could also be fun to drive. The original Mini seated 4 in comfort for a car of its size, and due to its low center of gravity, also became quite the popular car for motorsports, as evidenced by its success as a rally car.
With the rise of the retro craze booming in the later 1990s and early 2000s, BMW saw profit-- lots of it. It bought the much-loved Mini marque and its right from BMC in the mid-1990s, and quickly launched plans for a successor to the iconic car. In 2001, the Mini line was reborn as "MINI", in all capital letters. The cars for the US were the basic MINI Cooper, and much sportier MINI Cooper S. In 2005, a convertible was added to the lineup. However, in 2008, the lineup got its first redesign, and to me, lost all the character it had. The 2008s were bigger, and as a result, heavier. To then further dilute what little heritage the name had left, BMW went and released a Clubman, a vehicle which shits all of the name of the original. Then, to even further ruin the nameplate, an SUV (the Countryman) was released in 2010.
The car pictured above is exactly what I think of, when the term "new Mini" is thrown around; a perfect, tossable, fun little car that gets decent gas mileage while not looking the least bit dorky. Take that, Honda Civic.

New Cars 2012: Hyundai Veloster

So, I've featured a few new cars, here and there, but to be honest, I tend to feature new cars I like. Last year, I took a look at the Hyundai Sonata, and this year, I'm taking a close look at another one of their most talked about cars. With good reason.
Hyundai came to the US in 1986 as an unknown foreign car brand that wasn't Japanese like its main competitors. Bringing a Korean car into the US was certainly (and sorry for stealing a movie name) risky business. Not many people had heard of the Hyundai name, and even less cared to do research on said Hyundai cars. But, even as quickly as ten years into the US market, the brand was building a name for itself for cheap, reliable, but unfortunately bland cars. By the mid 2000s, however, Hyundai would transform itself from "maybe-pretender" to "serious contender."
With the mainstream portfolio taken care of with cars such as the award-winning Sonata, and fuel-miser Accent, the performance Genesis line, and a string of SUVs, Hyundai began thinking outside the box. The first result is what you see above. Aimed squarely at the people who think a Honda CRZ isn't quite the car they want, the Veloster is supposedly more of a driver's car. Although with not much power on tap, it appears that gas mileage and styling are its two main points.
While I do like the styling of the Veloster, I can see where people would take issue with it; it certainly isn't exactly what I'd call beautiful, yet to me, it isn't quite ugly either. I call it different. And that's exactly the point. Hyundai was trying to push the envelope while still have it recognized as their car. With that, they definitely succeeded. The controversial headlights are there as well as recently-introduced Hyundai signature split-spoke 5 spoke wheels.
One aspect I'm not sure many people will care for is the three-door treatment. I think it's fine, if not a bit cumbersome. It seems like too much hassle, although I'm sure previous Saturn SC owners will take issue with me here. When I think of "three-door", I either think mid-1990s extended cab pickup truck, or I think "three-door" as in two door hatchback. Ironically enough, this is a "true" three-door hatchback.
Overall, I quite like the Veloster; it's daring, it's different, but it's uniquely Hyundai. Certainly, it poses a more interesting case than other "competitors" like the Honda CR-Z, and to an extent, the cliched Scion TC, or a used Saturn SC coupe. However, if one truly desires a sporty-fun to drive car that looks like a coupe but has a usable backseat with easy access, get a Mazda RX-8. Be prepared for monstrous fuel bills, and oil consumption from hell, though.

New Cars 2012: Audi A6

More and more new cars are following the gaping mouth new front end styling, and it appears Audi is not ashamed of it. For 2012, Audi has fitted its new cars with the biggest (and ugliest) grilles in its entire history. Gone are the svelte, Germanic lines of the previous generation. Instead, it appears Audi has followed VW into the world of "Generically German", when it comes to styling. The previous iteration of the A6 was a pretty good looking car, in all trim levels, though the S-Line sedan and Avant were probably my favorite of the bunch, even in 3.6 trim.
The new car looks downright cheap in comparison. If someone didn't know much about cars, they could guess this new car had been built by VW, at least on looks. Sadly enough, the design is about on par with anything that parent company VW churns out. Out back, the car looks quite generic, as I had trouble initially distinguishing this new A6 from a VW Jetta. Not quite the impression a $55,000 car is supposed to convey, no?
For 2012, the 4.2 V8 has been dropped, as has the 3.2 V6. The sole powerplant is a supercharged 3.0V6. Many enthusiasts will cry that V8 is gone, but this supercharged V6 generates the same iffy gas mileage, while increasing the tuning potential. With 310 horses and 325 ft/lb of torque, this new engine is no slouch, per se, but the low rpm growl of the 4.2 will surely be missed. Gas mileage isn't horrible, but don't expect great numbers. Probably 20 MPG mixed driving, which isn't terrible, but I can assure you the much larger A8 gets better gas mileage, despite being more car. To remedy this problem, Audi is said to be working on a hybrid version, which is said to add at least $7,000 to the base price of any A6 trimline. More proof that the word Hybrid is synonymous with yuppies who want to emphasize their "green" credentials.

Minneapolis Street Sighting: Land Rover Series I

Out of all the older vehicles I've featured, this first-run Land Rover has to be one of the coolest. I know I've featured a proper Range Rover County on here before, but this thing is so much cooler; it's just.. it's a proper Brit. It's one of the those vehicles that looks at home parked in modern traffic, or out in the country in front of a mom and pop store. It's got that certain "anywhere" vibe to it.
Originally, I shot this with the intention of simply writing about the condition, and what I could do to make it better, but honestly, I like it the way it is. The Army green paint is likely original, as are the knobby tires on stock steel wheels. Heck, for all I know nothing has been done outside except a thorough restore. As one would expect, this is far from today's Land Rovers much like a Willys is far from Jeep Wrangler. Emphasizing toughness over creature comforts, this Land Rover was all about being through around and getting dirty; let's try that with an LR2. I dare you.
On the inside, much like the exterior, this truck was pretty bare bones. Obviously there's no navigation system, and the heated seats are courtesy of either your ass, or the sun. But with a vehicle like this, modern amenities would be pointless. Would you really want to ruin a Garmin nav frolicking through a mud hole? I didn't think so.
This example, although far from my favorite old Landie, is honestly one of my favorite non-car classic sightings; It reminds me of my trips overseas. This might sound cliche, but I think these are England's equivalent of the Ford Explorer in regards to popularity, and the fact that even when old, these things are still relatively common.
Would I sport this one? You bet I would. I'd likely use this as it was intended. Show me a mud hole, and give me a little off-road course, and I'm set. When I return, you can guarantee it won't be shiny.

Minneapolis Street Sighting: Ford Econoline Heavy Duty

Fun fact. Less than a tenth of my sightings/postings over the last couple years have been vans-- and most of those are Fords. This Econoline hopes to change that. When I first saw a glance of it, I knew it was worthy of a feature. Shame about the minor big dent, but overall it looked good.
As most car guys (and girls) are probably quick to point out, this example is a first generation, which lasted from the 1961 model year, until 1968. They came in 3 distinct bodystyles-- the cargo van (shown here), a passenger van, and a pickup truck. While I have seen a few of each, I have to say I like the cargo vans most. For some reason, they remind me of the little "vannettes" sold in Europe, Asia, and everywhere else but here in the USA. When new, these little Fords competed with the Corvair vans and Chevy "van", and the Dodge A-100. Both of these were available in the same configurations as the Ford as well. Since these vans could have a choice of three different six cylinders, and a three speed stick, this van probably has no engine upgrades. And that's fine. I like classics when mostly left untouched.
The paint on this near fifty year-old example looked great, save for a dent right up front. However, since this is Minnesota, and the paint is white, I'm going to hedge my bets on this being a repaint. Although, since it has its factory badges in the correct spot, it's hard to tell if it is or not.
While the script on the doors says heavy duty, it probably isn't up to carrying today's version of a "heavy duty" load, but that's fine. Most of these vans are bought and used by enthusiasts anyway, and clearly this one is owned by an enthusiast. The chrome baby moons are pretty awesome. While I generally would like to see stock wheels on such a rare (especially for this climate/area) vehicle, I quite like the visual appeal of this choice of wheels. I'm also going to guess that the combination fender flares/mudspats probably weren't a stock item back in 1961 when this van was introduced.
But that's quite alright. I dig this example just how it is. I'd change nary a thing on it, and just drive it. Although with a 3 spd manual (probably on the tree) it would probably be an extreme chore to drive in today's traffic, and it's probably quite slow, too. Oh well, I'd make the best of it, and deal with it. It's not a race car, and I don't think the owner intends it be.

New Cars 2012: Range Rover Eovque

Ever since the beginning of the line, Range Rovers have always been seen as trendy vehicles in America, but with a certain toughness about them; they've been known to be status symbols of wealth, but also symbols of class. Owning a Range Rover meant you wanted a durable vehicle, a vehicle that could get you damn near anywhere you wanted to go. Land Rover was the off-road king, and Range Rover was the posh king, but still retained immense off-road prowess. Now, with the introduction of the Evoque, Range Rover seems intent on catering to the on-road crowd.
Honestly, when I first got word through Car and Top Gear that Range Rover was building a vehicle that was more car instead of truck, I was admittedly worried; I thought for sure it would be a dud. Apparently, I was wrong.
From the outside, the styling is simply stunning. The relation to Jaguar is undeniable. It fits right in with even an XKR styling-wise. The front features (as you can see) semi-slim headlights, and a high bumper line that's obviously geared more toward aesthetic than safety. Out back, the treatment is much the same, with jewel like taillights being sandwiched between glass and bumper. It's a theme that visually makes the car look lower than it is. The profile is elegant, with a touch of sport, mimicking the slim glass treatment found at either end. The "floating roof" trend starting en masse by the first iteration of BMW's Mini is carried over here, and I like the execution. Couple these styling cues with the bigger wheels found on the Dynamic, and you've got yourself a hell of a looker, in both two and four door guise. Usually, I generally hate a four door and love the two, or vice versa. Here, I like both equally.
I have not sat in one yet, but I hope to soon. The interior looks amazing, at least from the pictures I've seen. It looks like a wild cross between a Sci-Fi set and an Jaguar interior, definitely no bad thing. It's almost as if this vehicle was designed from the onset to look good in four or five years, like the Infiniti FX. I just hope the styling doesn't end up looking dated with all the new ideas that are coming out.
I have heard hit or miss things regarding Land Rover's (and Jaguar's) quality, but since they're both owned by Tata, I hope the quality levels do go up. This latest stride from JLR is truly a stunner aesthetically, and I've never said that about one of their "new" products before until now. Here's hoping the mechanical reliability will be on par with its figure.