Envision this: You’re the editor of Motor Trend. And, naturally, you have lots of friends in automotive journalism. You see them at industry events, major auto shows, and press launches of important new vehicles, typically at exotic locations here in the U.S. and overseas. Now imagine inviting those friends to a bar after the first day of the New York auto show in April with these words: “Let’s design a dream car.” You’ll build a driveable version in less than six months, in time to be unveiled on a turntable in Los Angeles in November.
Sound improbable? Of course. But, believe it or not, this scenario transpired 45 years ago. Instead of New York, it was in London, England. The publication was The Daily Telegraph Magazine, and the editor was John Anstey. The car was a collaboration among auto journalists, Anstey, Jaguar, and the design house of Bertone, and was known as the 1967 Jaguar Bertone Pirana Coupe.
In March 1967, the increasingly powerful Anstey cooked up another wild scheme to promote his weekend magazine, gathering a group of motoring writers at that year’s Geneva motor show and asking them, in effect, “If you could build your dream car, what would it be?” The group of motoring scribes examined what was then the state-of-the-art in automotive design, culling elements from Aston Martin, Ferrari, Jaguar, Lamborghini, Lotus, and Maserati to come up with their ideal 2+2 Grand Touring coupe. But this was no mere pipe dream. After pushing the magazine’s senior management, Anstey actually obtained the budget to push the “dream coupe” vision forward. What’s more, he had the audacity to promise delivery of an actual car in just six months.
Sad to say, no such scenario presented itself when I was a business magazine editor. But the concept of this story was so captivating that I decided to create my own 2+2 as the one-man design team.
That, however, got waylaid by another idea — to create the ultimate sport utility vehicle. Not something like a Cadillac Escalade or Lincoln Navigator, but the original intention of the British Land Rover Range Rover — a vehicle that farmers could use for their daily work and take the family somewhere for the weekend. So it needs to be on- and off-road capable, but not Spartan.
Range Rover, you ask? According to Range Rover Classic, the original Range Rover was designed as a “Four-In-One car” …
“A luxury car”
“A performance car”
“An estate car”
“A cross country car”
… or, put another way in brochures …
“It is a seven-days-a-week luxury motor car for all business, social and domestic purposes.”
“It is a leisure vehicle that will range far and wide on the highways and noways of the world in pursuit of its owner’s activities and interests.”
“It is a high-performance car for long distance travel in the grand manner.”
“It is a working cross-country vehicle with a payload capacity of 1200 lb.”
… all by the definitions of 1970 Great Britain. (An “estate car” there is a station wagon here, but you knew that.) Today’s definition of “luxury motor car” generally does not include nonexistent air conditioning, rudimentary carpeting or a lack of automatic transmission choice, but none of those were available on the original Range Rover. Nor were four doors, until 1982.
I assume the Range Rover was developed because of a lack of British pickup truck tradition. In part for that reason, the Range Rover got some interesting uses:
The Range Rover became very popular as a police vehicle to patrol motorways (“freeways” over here).Fire truck. Notice the extra rear axle.
Think of this as the six-wheel Vista Cruiser edition.Before the Nissan Murano convertible SUV, there was …
The other inspiration is the Mercedes–Benz Geländewagen, developed by, of all people, the Shah of Iran. So obviously it had some military uses:
Canadian military, with the roof machine gun option.Norwegian military.Also with six wheels.
We’ll call our SUV the Cross Country, the former name of Rambler station wagons in the 1960s, because this SUV is intended to meet that purpose. What I have in mind bridges the gap between SUV and truck (with a specific retro design feature in mind), for those who might need either at some point.
(Unfortunately, since I can’t really draw, I have to describe, instead of show, what I have in mind.)
One goal here is to offer a few choices for the buyer. You can buy a Chevrolet Suburban, Ford Expedition or Jeep Grand Cherokee with any engine and transmission combination you like, as long as it’s a gas engine attached to an automatic transmission. GM and Ford no longer build pickups with manual transmissions, and the only Dodge — I mean Ram — you can buy with a proper transmission is the 3500 attached to a Cummins diesel.
The gas motor choice is GM’s LS3 E-Rod V-8, which is rated at 430 horsepower and 450 pound-feet of torque. Why 430 horsepower in an SUV? That’s 20 fewer horsepower than the answer-in-search-of-a-question Lamborghini LM002, the 12-cylinder four-door pickup.
The diesel choice is the Navistar Maxxforce 7, which has 300 horsepower and 660 pound-feet of torque. (The diesel was formerly used in Ford Super Duty pickups until Ford designed its own diesel. Having driven a Maxxforce-equipped moving truck, I am much more impressed with Navistar engines than with, say, Isuzu diesels.)
The manual transmission would be the ZF 6S700, which offers a low first gear and an overdrive sixth. The automatic would also be from ZF, the AS Tronic 700.
The Cross County would be a four-wheel-drive, not all-wheel-drive, vehicle most likely, for heavier-duty truck-like uses. I think independent front and rear suspension works better for handling, with (based on the Range Rover) lots of suspension travel built in, and, borrowing from the Corvette, magnetic shock absorbers with adjustable stiffness control inside the Cross Country.
Inside would have the usual SUV accouterments (air, stereo/navigation system, sunroof), with the extra proviso of a lot of gauges, which are always preferable to idiot lights. (The first Range Rovers had just a speedometer, fuel gauge and temperature gauge; the lack of tachometer is strange for a manual-transmission-only vehicle).
About that design feature: The first Range Rovers and G-wagons were two-doors. Four-doors are all they sell now. (G-wagons were available in two- and four-door versions and as convertibles.) You’d probably want at least an option for a third row of seats. But, you think to yourself, how do you get the utility of a pickup truck and the seating capacity of an SUV?
My first idea was to adapt the sliding roof design of the Studebaker Wagonaire and the GMC Envoy XUV. Those were huge failures in the marketplace, which is why despite seeming like a good idea, it apparently isn’t.
The roof of the first two generations (this is a 1977) of Chevrolet Blazers was removable.
The same was the case with the first Dodge Ramchargers. That, I think, solves the pickup-vs.-SUV issue. If you need the extra space, take off the top.
One reason I’m so bullish on Australia is that the nation has a privatized Social Security system called “Superannuation,” with workers setting aside 9 percent of their income in personal retirement accounts (rising to 12 percent by 2020).
Established almost 30 years ago, and made virtually universal about 20 years ago, this system is far superior to the actuarially bankrupt Social Security system in the United States.
Probably the most sobering comparison is to look at a chart of how much private wealth has been created in Superannuation accounts and then look at a chart of the debt that we face for Social Security.
To be blunt, the Aussies are kicking our butts. Their system gets stronger every day and our system generates more red ink every day.
And their system is earning praise from unexpected places. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, led by a former Clinton Administration official, is not a right-wing bastion. So it’s noteworthy when it publishes a study praising Superannuation.
Australia’s retirement income system is regarded by some as among the best in the world. It has achieved high individual saving rates and broad coverage at reasonably low cost to the government.
Since I wrote my dissertation on Australia’s system, I can say with confidence that the author is not exaggerating. It’s a very good role model, for reasons I’ve previously discussed.
This week, it’s Dick Brockman, the 31-year publisher of The Platteville Journal. Who, as a good newspaperman would, died in time to get in this week’s newspaper. (Media types appreciate that kind of irony and black humor.)
I have known Joe Wineke as a particularly odious Democrat, a former state senator and head of the Wisconsin Democratic Party. During a political issue in which Wineke was on the wrong side, someone commented that “Wineke” was pronounced “WHINE-icky.”
Then I heard from Wineke’s successor as head of the state Democratic Party, and Wineke sounded statesman-like in comparison.
I’m not sure what happened to Wineke, because based on what he wrote for the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, he’s starting to make sense:
By any definition, Wisconsin is in economic trouble. Recent reports rate the state 44th in job creation and, according to CNBC, 46th in the quality of our workforce. Even worse, for the past 30 years, we have ranked 48th in personal income growth. We are not creating enough jobs, our workforce is not diverse enough and our income lags well behind the rest of the country. If something does not change and change soon, Wisconsin could be last in the nation in job creation.
It is imperative that we change the way we do business. We need to think big and de-politicize the process while doing so.
State government likes to talk about job creation, but consistently thinks small. Both political parties waste time blaming each other. Republicans think we can fix everything by cutting taxes and weakening the regulatory climate. Democrats play the “soak the rich” card at any available opportunity and often reject anything that smacks of business help. Neither plan does much to create well-paying jobs.
Wisconsin should look at four areas that will create greater economic opportunity for our state. We need to:
Make major investments in business capital.
Change our tax code.
Fix our transportation system.
Provide major investments in education.
The detail of Wineke’s bullet points:
Start with business capital. It is no secret that businesses (especially small and start-up business) are having a very difficult time getting private-sector funding. Recently, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and the State of Wisconsin Investment Board came up with a plan to provide up to $30 million in investment capital. A good start, but the amount of funding is so small that it will only help on the edges. Wisconsin needs to create a large business and venture capital fund, place it out of the hands of politicians and fund the program through bonding.
This is at least worth pursuing, although how you “place it out of the hands of politicians” is an excellent question. (In fact, Wineke’s desire to “depoliticize the process” seems naïve, though well-intentioned.) There’s also a policy question of whether you really want government involved in financing business, although that is already the case with such organizations as the U.S. Small Business Administration.
Second, we need to look at taxes. Wisconsin should follow the four basic principles of sound tax policy: simplicity, transparency, economic neutrality and stability. Start by eliminating the tax on tangible personal property. It is poorly administered, is complex, treats businesses worse than other property owners and is very unstable. Currently this tax raises around $260 million per year and is entirely placed on the business community.
We should also rewrite our sales tax code. We currently exempt more from the sales tax than we collect, creating unfair disparities. For example, internet sales are tax exempt in Wisconsin. Customers on Main Street pay. It is grossly unfair and puts our merchants at a disadvantage. But, once again it will require our elected officials to think outside the box.
There are points to be made on both sides of the Internet sales tax, but revising the sales tax while keeping the revisions revenue-neutral is worth considering. Tax revenues should increase because of increasing economic activity, not because of increasing taxes. As long as Wineke correctly wants to get rid of the personal property tax, he should also favor dumping the corporate income tax, which, like the personal property tax, is not paid by businesses, but is paid by businesses’ customers.
Wineke’s focus on taxes ignores the fact that, while taxes are the most important component of a good, or bad, business climate, it’s not the only component. I’d love to see a Democrat take on the job-killers at the Department of Natural Resources and the other regulatory agencies that make doing business a struggle in this state.
Wisconsin business moves by highways. It costs millions of dollars to replace or add a mile of road. Our transportation funding system is a relic from 50 years ago. It is dominated by a large gas tax and a registration fee that is regressive. The United States has reduced oil consumption by nearly 15% in the past two years, reducing available tax revenue. This trend will continue. We must have the courage to find new ways to fund transportation. The most logical way is to create an assessment on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A VMT assessment is fair.
Here’s where our paths diverge. My preferred way to fund transportation is to fund vehicular transportation, and not mass transit, bike paths or the other non-vehicular forms of transportation that suck money out of the transportation fund while having nothing to do with moving state businesses’ products from plant to seller. Apparently Wineke is OK with the state’s knowing how much you drive; I am not.
Fourth, we need to get back to funding education properly. In recent years, education has become a “whipping post” for too many. Instead of cutting income taxes by two dollars a week, put that money into K-12 education, technical colleges and our University System. We also need to refocus our technical colleges away from being the portal to enter four-year campuses and get them back to teaching job skills.
When you consider that the number one area of state spending is on education, it’s unclear what “funding education properly” is, or what the result of “funding education properly is.” This state’s schools are, bluntly, overrated, despite the fact that few states’ taxpayers have been burdened by the taxes Wisconsinites pay for our supposedly great schools. Schools need to earn more money by doing better, not merely given what the education establishment defines as “funding education properly.”
The other thing about school funding is that there remains no evidence that school quality leads to economic growth on the macro (that is, statewide) level. As I’ve pointed out before, when a person’s education improves, that person’s economic opportunity improves, including leaving Wisconsin for greener pastures. We’ve had better schools than most other states for the entire 30 years our state has ranked 48th in personal income growth.
I disagree with a lot of what Wineke wrote, but I give him credit for not singing out of the Democratic songbook. (Using a bible metaphor seems oxymoronic.) The state’s business climate should be a nonpartisan issue. If you’re going to create more jobs, you have to improve the business climate, since, even in this overgoverned state, business still employs the majority of employed Wisconsinites.
Assuming that jobs are an issue in the 2014 elections, Wisconsinites should welcome Democratic candidates who come up with a superior approach to the approach of the late 2000s Legislature, which, under Democratic control, took a poor business climate and made it worse. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett didn’t come up with a better approach, which is why he remains the mayor of Milwaukee and why Democrats are the minority party in the Legislature.