Seiko 7002 NH35

The Seiko 7002.


A picture I stole from the internet.

Caught between the 2nd generation "slim case" 6309s (which it replaced in 1988) and later 7S26 powered SKXs (which replaced it in 1996), and confused with both, the 7002 has always been a bit lost. The most obvious identifying feature is the lack of a day window, unlike both its predecessors and successors. Aside from this, and the simplified crown tube, its rather similar to a late 6309. Again like the 6309 but very importantly unlike the SKXs, the crown is at 4 o'clock.

7002s are not very valuable at the moment, so there is not a massive incentive to fix them. There seem to be plenty of dead ones or poorly working ones available cheaply on various internet auction sites. The cost of having a 7002 movement repaired or rebuilt is simply more, in any first world country, than even a good, let alone a fair, 7002 is worth.

Unable to resist I bought a 7002 as a project. Now the dilemma of how to fix it. Working 7002 movements are virtually unobtainable. The closely related 7009, common in many cheap Seiko 5s of the early 90s, is fairly easily to get, often still in said Seiko 5s. Unremarkable Seiko 5 dress watches of the early 90s, made and sold in the Phillipines etc are often very cheap. I managed to find two of these, one even with a 4 o'clock crown but for various reasons the attempts failed. Swopping over date wheels of the wrong colour, removing day wheels (the 7009 is the day/date version of the 7002) or just because the movements themselves were in poor condition. Maybe buying cheap watches on Ebay was a bad idea?
I may still revisit this idea as I have bits of another 7002 lying around. I see recently that an Ebay seller is offering refurbished what he calls "7002/7009 hybrid" movements for sale as replacements for 7002 divers. Clever man. 7002/7009 hybrid sounds fancy but appear just to be a 7009A with a 7002 dial fitted thereby covering the day wheel (which may or may not be removed.) And indeed why not, tis a good idea.

In the meantime however I found a source of reasonably priced new movements and so decided to go that route. SII non-branded Seiko movements, used by many micro-brand mechanical watch makers these days, and bigger outfits like Invicta and Vostok, are rather reasonably priced.
And so:

A lovely new SII NH35A, the date only version of the NH36A, the non-branded version of the Seiko 4R35, the upgraded version of the 7S36 successor to the 7S26, standard Seiko diver movement for many years and replacement for the 7002. And all of them are the same size. Isnt that handy?

NH35 sitting snugly in a second gen 7002 case. 

Now had this been a Seiko with a 3:45 or 3:00 crown our story would have ended here. In fact my wife has such a watch, a SKX031, and an NH36 proved to be a direct swop for the failed 7S26, some issues with the crown aside. 

But the 7002 has a 4 o'clock crown. So lining everything up was going to be a problem. In the end I chose the easy route and decided to ditch the date window, which meant going with a custom dial. I happened to have a custom 7002 dateless dial lying around from aforementioned failed (for now) 7002 repair project so I cut its feet off and attached it with the 3 and a half adhesive pads you should be able to make out in the above picture. Had a used a custom dial designed for a 7S26 or later movement it would probably just have fitted. 

The next issue was the crown. One easily forgotten thing to keep in mind which movement swopping: the stem must match the movement, but the crown must match the case. The supplied NH35 stem screwed happily into the 7002 crown. The only issue was getting the length EXACTLY right. This was achieved using a micrometer, some calculations, small sidecutters, 1000 grit sandpaper, patience and a few frustrating hours. Mainly spent

sanding. Slow, but the safest way to shorten a stem in tiny mounts. The NH35 hacks and winds so there is a lot going on with the stem.

Face stuck in place, on go the hands, in this case from some 60s Seiko dress watch that closely approximate second gen 6105 hands. Why? I felt they matched the face. Weirdly the second hand from that set refused to fit so I a strange black second hand that I think is from a fake set for a 7002 or SKX of some sort. Now rushing down the home straight, as one does at the end of a long project, in went a standard 7002 chapter ring, new standard 7002 bezel insert on old 7002 bezel, standard 7002 glass.
Case, case back, bezel, chapter ring and glass all came from the 7002 donor wreck.

Chucked it on a NATO I had lying around for now. I dont have an intact standard 7002 to compare it to, so here it is next to my second gen 6309. And a 6105 homage (more about it later) recently acquired just to show how far off my ideas of it looking 6105ish were.

You could of course do this with any dateless dial and hands and there are many things I could have done differently, but I quite like it. With a new NH35 it keeps time well and I rather appreciate the addition of winding and hacking.

Some winter testing up in the Swedish mountains.

A group test of the right sort.

Here is a link to a group test in an American motoring magazine:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-honda-civic-ex-l-vs-2014-kia-forte-ex-2014-mazda-3-i-touring-2014-toyota-corolla-s-2014-volkswagen-jetta-se-comparison-test

Go and read it.
Even if you feel the cars, being that weird third-world but not quite mix, are not quite relevant to you. If you live in South Africa they are fairly relevant and take heart, in 10 years you might be able to afford them.

But read the test, because its good. Its beautifully written, humorous and above all it takes the cars seriously.
I both love - and despair at - the fact that only Americans can be bothered to skid-pan test "cheap" saloons. Also they call them "small sports saloons" which is just lovely, almost makes you feel good about them,

The Brits would just drive around the block, ask where the diesel version is and make nasty jokes about salesmen and pensioners. Americans call Mazda3s small sporting saloons and skid pan test them, the English dismiss a 535d M-Sport as "copier salesman's car". Or at least reminding them of one.
Just because you don't drive a Porsche 911 GT3RS, or a Megane R20-something full of scaffolding, doesn't mean it is impossible that you care about driving.

Why is Car & Driver so much better than the rest?
Well maybe the issue with the rest is image: their image. Do you mind being seen as a slightly geeky gear/petrolhead? Or must you be seen as so awesomely cool that you cannot be impressed by anything less than a La Ferrari. (Unless its some sort of stupid irrelevant track-day only car.)
And its not that the simple colonial Yanks are impressed by every old thing: read that test, they lambaste the Toyota and Honda, and really let the Kia's dynamics have it. While liking the Mazda and the Jetta. Because despite what our motoring presses tell us, while noone makes fall-apart in 3 years lemons anymore (?) there are still HUGE differences in how these cars are to drive.
Which should matter to you, unless you absolutely cannot drive.

Old lenses on new cameras, II

Any search on the subject of mounting old manual lenses on modern cameras will inevitably lead you to discussion of modern mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras, if not specially the micro four thirds format. Simpler bodies, no mirror mechanism and a shorter distance to the sensor make these modern small cameras more flexible.
So, how well does it work, compared to the Canon EOS we tried last?

Here we have a Panasonic DMC GF2 M4/3 camera, you can see the exposed sensor (thank goodness it has a dust-reduction system) and lying next it an example of a modern M4/3 lens, in this case the wonderfully compact 14-42mm "powerzoom" lens. Below it lie an old, worthless, M42 lens - an unremarkable Wiestar 35mm 2.8 in this case - and a cheap M42-M4/3 adaptor. Unlike the M42-EOS adaptor, this one is unfortunately quite deep. In the leading picture we can see this lens fitted.

So, how does it work? Handling is a little awkward due to the small light camera with the long heavy lens jutting out ahead of it - 2cms of essentially hollow adapter does not help - the center of gravity is rather far forward. Aside from this - rather well. The LCD screen on the GF2 is good and the ability to manually focus using this screen with a zoom focus preview function far exceeded my expectations. To my amazement I did far better with this camera-lens combo on a day out than I did with the EOS 300D and manual lens. Nonetheless, forget about taking pics of toddlers with this, not ones that are awake in any case. As with the EOS you get through the lens metering.  

The smaller sensor of most MILCs (Samsung, Sony and Fuji use a APS-C sized sensor, but the M4/3 is smaller, and the Nikon 1s and some Pentax MILCs are smaller still) and other factors means that even more obscure old lenses can be used, for instance C-mount CCTV lenses or M39s. This is fun but the smaller sensor brings with it a rather large problem. the crop factor. That nice wide 35mm...its equivalent to 70mm on this camera. Seeing as most old lenses you are going to be using were intended for 35mm film cameras, they tend to be in "longer" focal lengths. 35mm, 55mm, 85mm, and 135mm seem to be the most common sizes for M42s for example. These all end up being rather long on the GF2. Pity. 

In the end the most useful lenses for the M4/3 cameras are the wonderful modern pancake lenses. 

Finally, largly for fun, a M39 Jupiter-8 50mm 2.0 lens from my Zorki, working well on the GF2 with a rather compact L39-M4/3 adaptor. Quite nice and compact - and you will simply never get a M/L39 lens to work on an DSLR. But 100mm effective focal length...well look at it this way: For a 100m f2.0 lens, its very small and light indeed! 

To summarize

Using M42 and M39 lenses on Panasonic/Olympus M4/3:

Aperture preview:               No

Camera aware of aperture:  No

Metering:                            Yes

Available modes:                 M, A

Old lenses on new cameras, I

Digital cameras, like all other "tech" fields, have advanced extremely fast. From essentially not existing 20 years ago to the rapidly advancing market we see today. I shall try not to terribly upset serious photographers by saying lens technology is not advancing, but it is certainly not advancing at quite the same rate. A digital camera from 15 years ago is almost entirely useless today, glass from 35 years ago is however a different story. The biggest metamorphosis that SLRs have gone through is arguably* not the change to digital but rather the change to auto-focus more than a decade earlier. That is when some of the biggest changes where made, when new lens-mounts appeared and old ones disappeared. This leaves us with many good lenses that suffer from being both manual focus and designed for an obsolete mount. i.e. useless. A waste of good glass. 

Or are they? 

If you are prepared to with manual focus, then no, this is not the case at all. These lenses have no motors, and no way of electronically communicating with the camera (and nothing to say, had they the means to say it) so obviously they are never going to auto-focus, however physically fitting them to a current lens mount is no more complicated than using the right adapter. Oh the joy of fitting together two pieces of metal - use a third piece. Like this one:

Pictured: A piece of metal.

A Fotodiox M42 to EOS adapter. M42 (Pentax screw) being a very popular old manual focus 35mm film SLR (and rangefinder) screw type mount and EOS - more correctly EF or EF-S - being the current electronic bayonet mount used by Canon EOS auto-focus film and digital cameras. 

Sadly its not entirely that simple (when is it?), complications arise from the distance from lens to the sensor, if you can't get this right the lens wont focus, or at least not to infinity. I won't try to explain this here but the end result is that some moderns are utterly unsuitable for using adapters (like the Nikon F-mount) and others will require longer/deeper adapters. (Like micro 4/3 but more on that in another post.) The Canon EF mount however lends itself very well to this endeavor, so I bought myself a cheap Canon EOS 300D. 

Historically significant as the first sub $1000 DSLR, today just a cheap camera with a nasty plastic case. Notice the EF-S bayonet mount on the camera, next to it is a matching Canon EF-S 18-55mm kit lens. At the of the lens you will see the electronic ("CPU") contacts, you will see the corresponding contacts on the camera at the bottom of the mount. The EF-S is an electronic mount - all communication between the camera and lens occurs through those contacts. (Unlike, say an Nikon F-mount.)

Here the adapter is locked into place. Actually, because EF-S is bayonet and the M42 lens is a screw mount, its easier to leave the adapter attached to the lens.

And there is our vintage lens, in this case a Chinon 55mm f1.7 M42, the same lens fitted to the EOS 300D in the first picture. As you see there are no CPU or mechanical contacts on the adapter. The only control that the M42 lens expected to receive in any case was when to stop-down the aperture - the Canon EF does this electronically so the function is lost. Aperture control occurs via a beautifully machined ring near the rear of the lens, focusing at very small apertures can be hard due to the viewfinder (already poor on the 300D, like most autofocus SLRs) getting rather dark, this one just has to live with. Likewise the poor viewfinder can make focusing itself hard, especially with the lens at f1.7. Practice is needed here, an alternate solution is to fit your camera with an old-school split image focusing screen. (Starting from around $25 from China - I am not sure yet how good these are.) The better viewfinders that higher end DSLRs possess could well make this task either - I guess I should have conducted my experiments with a EOS 20D, not a 300D...

On the Canon you get through the lens metering, meaning you can use either manual or aperture-priority modes (you control the aperture yourself from the lens) and you will probably get the correct exposure. I say probably because, especially with a fast lens like this Chinon, you can easily "run out" of workable shutter speeds in bright light.

So obviously there are drawbacks. The rewards? Well aside from the extreme cheapness of these lenses - that Chinon 55mm 1.7 cost me 120kr (less than $20) and I have a Wiestar 35mm and 135mm that cost me even less - there is some sense of satisfaction in using these old lenses, in addition to the fact that the lenses themselves are often beautiful. The Chinon is a work of art compared to the frankly icky plastic Canon kit lens pictured above. 

To summarize

Using M42 lenses on Canon EOS:

Aperture preview:               No

Camera aware of aperture:  No

Metering:                            Yes

Available modes:                 M, Av (Manual and Aperture Priority if you don't speak Canon.)

*I argue that it is.

My 2010 VW POLO TSI GT DSG

My Mk5 Polo, or to use its full grandiose title, Polo TSI GT DSG Car of the year edition. Though it only says Polo TSI on the back. GT is a spec level in Sweden, I believe the UK equivalent would be SEL. The Car of the year edition was a limited run model to celebrate winning COTY and was 1.2 TSI GT Polo with DSG box and RCD310 satnav system. It was the only way to get a 1.2 TSI Polo in Sweden in 2010 and so I bought one.
I bought it as an economical commuter car and a counter point to my weekend toy, a 1988 535i. It replaced a 2007 320i and this should be kept in mind as it colours my view of the Polo.

I feel that the Polo Mk5 is, alongside the Jetta 6, one of the best looking cars VW have ever produced. But we are not here to discuss styling…
The two most interesting features of this car are the TSI engine and DSG box, and they do indeed define its character. The 1.2 TSI manages 175MN, the same as a typical early ‘90s 2.0, but more amazingly this is all available from below 2000rpm, giving a very un-small feeling. The rapid changing DSG gearbox adds to the surrealness of the experience. In normal town driving the engine virtually never exceeds 2000rpm and there is really no need to. Full throttle will easily break the traction of the 215 16” tyres, on winter tyres you are limited to part throttle.  Very diesel-like, aside from the 6000rpm redline.
I bought this car remembering the small fun VWSA products of my youth, specifically the CitiGolf (Golf Mk1) and Polo Playa (Seat Ibiza Mk2). The Polo is small, light and powerful but comparatively so refined that a lot of the excitement is lost. Make no mistake, this can be a good thing, a 300kms trip was to be dreaded in a Golf 1, the Polo takes it in its stride.
But somehow you never get the same feeling driving it fast on small roads. Its utterly undramatic. The steering is electric, and while it has excellent feel compared to say, a Fabia or Clio, it doesn’t give you the detailed feedback that you need to become one with the car. The throttle response is best described as distant – you’re merely giving orders to engine room, not pulling the lever yourself – and the DSG7 gearbox is simply never in the right gear. Push down violently on the throttle and there is a delay, an embarrassing pause as if the ECU is asking itself “Did he mean to do that?”, come suddenly off the throttle, especially in Sport mode, and the engine will linger, roaring at high revs, as if caught out by your lack of consistency. This is all really a pity because on the odd occasion that you and the car get it all right, the power delivery is very impressive. So much torque, so little weight, and the gearbox holding the engine in its powerband – by small car standards seemingly endless acceleration. Compared to the almost amateurish behavior of the powertrain the handling is very polished. The damping is as good as it is reasonable to expect from a small, simply-sprung car, the compromise between roll control and comfort excellently chosen, the ride adequate despite 35 profile tyres. But it isn’t very interesting, the back simply follows the front, there is no adjustability, no subtlety to it. It’s amusing purely from how quickly you can move from point to point on country roads, with confidence and at speeds you would simply never match in most of its competition.
In winter however if’s a very different story. This is a car that relies on grip.  Without it there is abundant understeer which if you try to push through, as you can on some cars, you risk swinging out the tail or simply sliding sideways. Put simply the Polo does not cope well in conditions of low grip. It always feels skittish and unstable and any attempts to play are quickly interrupted by the typically-VAG overbearing ESP system.
For the keen driver then, and even more so someone with memories of small VWs of the past, this car is, and indeed has been to me, a disappointment. However to a normal sane person it is a great car. The quality of the interior is excellent , its an outstandingly easy and relaxing car to commute in, and it does around 6.0L per 100kms  (someone else can translate that into ridiculous MPG) even in heavy traffic. My lighter footed and more conscientious wife can easily achieve less than 5.5L per 100kms, in other words easily less than the real world figures for a wretched eco-diesel.

MORE POWER FOR THE PEOPLE! A 3.0 SIX FOR EVERYONE.

Or: The frustrating paucity of genuine road test data.

Being able to read in more than one language allows you to read even more road tests. Only reading English can give one a skewed perspective; What the Americans say about cars is best ignored, the Australian and South African markets are somewhat insular and irrelevant. The British, while masters of the language, only appear to care about diesels. 

And so I was reading a Swedish comparative road test: The (then - early 2010) new Volvo S60 2.0T vs its competition from the usual German triplets. I was actually reading this test (does one need a reason, really?) for more into the featured ethanol burning A4 2.0 TFSI Quattro when I glanced across to the figures for the BMW 325i, a car I had hitherto ignored - because obviously no one can afford to run a normally aspirated 3.0 straight 6 in this day and age of downsizing and forced induction - when I was socked to see it was the most economical car in the test, beating it’s 1.8 and 2.0 blown 4pot competition. Surely not? But no, the testers were quite sure, despite being the fastest and most powerful car on test it used the least fuel. (and put out the least CO2, if you care about or even believe in that sort of thing - I assure you, your taxman does.) For the kind of practical and sensible reasons that could only be understood by a Swede the Audi was still pronounced the winner, but that’s hardly the point here. The point is that here is a “big six” you could afford to commute in, and what’s more, how did I not know about this?

Now having something to set my obsessive mind to, much very enjoyable research followed. The late 2007 facelift of the BMW e90 included, in addition to the “Efficient Dynamics” set of modifications, the new direct injection N53 in place of the the Valvetronic N52 but only in Europe. In the case of the 325i the engine was now a 3.0 instead of a 2.5. Power remained the same, torque increased slightly but the headline is the dramatically improved economy. Comparing tests done on the pre- and post-facelift 325is done by the same Swedish mag, a dramatic improvement indeed. Suddenly there is no need to bother with a Golf GTi or Skoda Octavia RS. 
This knowledge of course, in addition to requiring visits to the nearest BMW dealer to check their “Premium Used” section, and replacing excitement at the launch of the new forced induction only f30 with a slightly bittersweet feeling, also lead me to suddenly wonder about a e60 5-series. Didnt it also receive the N53 and Efficient Dynamics kit - yes, in Europe it did. Doesn't that mean it will also be amazingly economical? Should I not in fact perform my daily commute in a 530i auto? No, apparently not, in the single tests each I can find of the post 2007 525i and 530i is was pretty thirsty. Sad. How can it use so much more fuel than the (only) 220kg lighter e90?

I don’t know and I am unlikely to find out due to the paucity of information I am forced to work with. Why does nobody test these cars? When someone tests a 3-series, why it is always 320d? (or a 335i?) Why wasn't more fuss made of the N53 and its amazingly economy? Why where we being told to buy 2.0 turbo 4s, when we could have had one of the last attainable normally aspirated sixes? Why it is so hard to find any test on any BMW with name ending in -25i? Yes I know I am very boring, I want to sit and read fuel consumption figures, I want to compare the e90 and e60s and work out some kind of pattern - because I live in the real world were petrol costs money and what to see what the real costs are. 

I am sick of this massive diesel preference, specifically in the English motoring press. Comparing the tested figures of the last, now sadly gone e90 325i to the 320d of the same time show that you’d really have to do a lot of mileage for total cost of ownership (ignoring depreciation) of the 325i to be greater than that of the 320d. Now don't get me wrong, the 320d is a great car. I dont like diesels but I am forced to admit that it is excellent…but compared to the incredible joys of a 3.0 BMW straight6? For similar money, can you get your head around that?

And yet nobody knows, for these cars are simply ignored.

Edit 16 months later:
It appears, sadly, that the N53 suffered a fair amount of reliability issues, specifically injector problems and now appears to be largely dead. Even in the F10 its place has been taken by the new turbo 4 bangers. I say appear because, as always, there is virtually no information on this, and in any case relatively few N53 engined E90s were sold. (Because you were all to busy buying diesels, weren't you?)

But to end this on a more positive note, here is the article in the original gansta: (Excuse the language.) http://www.gizoogle.net/xfer.php?link=http://gtdriver.tumblr.com/post/17656547265/more-power-for-the-people-a-3-0-six-for-everyone&sa=U&ei=umqwUc3hJO-N7AaEsoCYBw&ved=0CCoQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNHn6JuJURy5DG6q5kre93rr_l2oMg

Now thats a small computer. HTPC anyone?

A lot of what I watch on TV is from the internet, in avi format etc or not even a TV program. Youtube, Google maps, photos and such. In other words I find myself wanting a computer connected to my TV. Now I've watched downloaded .avis for a long time - and I refuse to sit and do it on my PC because I am not a teenager, so I have tried various other approaches. Many years ago I even had a huge noisy tower PC connected to my TV setup - it was the easiest/cheapest way of watching DVDs at the time (South Africa, long story) - but subsequently I've tried more civilized methods like DivX DVD players or even USB compatible models and these have worked to a acceptable degree. This all culminated in the purchase of a PS3 three years ago. An excellent media device and cost-effective (at the time) Bluray player.
And I have never gotten around to building a proper HTPC as such. (Unless I count my fulltower AMD K6 based DVD playing monster of the 90s.) They have always seemed too expensive, too big and too noisy. And recently, not powerful enough - the PS3 narrowly beat out a Asus EEE nettop. (No optical drive and I am suspicious of Atoms...)

Yet here I have so something that could be called an HTPC. Its tiny, its silent and it cost me about $50.
An Android minipc it calls itself....essentially a smartphone minus the screen and battery, i.e the expensive bits. A9 dual core CPU and 1GB RAM putting it on par with a typical  2011 smartphone, think iPhone 4S or Samsung Galaxy S2.
It runs some variant of Android 4.1 and so far seems to work perfectly.  Its fast enough and played Youtube HD beautifully. Amazingly my Logitech 2.4ghz wireless keyboard worked straight away. I chose the cheaper non-bluetooth version and so have two USB ports, a microSD reader, Wifi and a miniHDMI port that obviously also handles the sound.  Which seems to work fine as well. So far Ive connected it to my 23" Benq LED screen that serves as a bedroom "TV"  (yes I know, disgusting first world habit, multiple TVs...).
More tests will follow. I am specifically interested in streaming avis via SMB (vs DLNA) and image quality on a real TV.

In this general spirit of Androidness I even made this blog post on my Galaxy Note, which I can say was a plague.  Be fun to see how the formatting turns out...

(Edit 2013-05-06 - Fixed formatting on PC...)

Childhood hero

When I was rather young I saw this magazine:

Quite a long time ago if you note the date. The cover article sparked a near long interest in that car. The more I read and learnt the more I wanted one, a 535i manual with cross-spoke wheels.
Years of reading about E34s and the mighty M30 straight six did little to dampen this. Getting a e30 316i in 2002 and learning the joys of RWD didn't harm it either.
Until finally many years later:

My own 1988 (March or April for that matter) 535i manual, with cross spoke BBS wheels. A lifelong dream fulfilled or meeting a childhood hero? 

They say you never should and in many ways its been a mixed bad. I still find the car beautiful and the M30 is an even more magnificent engine then I had imagined. However its not quite the dynamic paragon I had hoped, its magnificent but not fun as such. Its fast but not quick. In the confined driving environment here its mighty and intimidating. While it was in for a recent service I was lent a lovely late model E36 316i compact (the 1.9 M43 model) and honestly it was more fun. Not as good to look at, to sit in, to start, to hear, or to tell people you own, but honestly more fun to drive.
That combined with the effort and expense of owning a "summer only" car, makes me being to wonder if what I really want a simpler, lighter, more sporting second car. A traditional lightweight sports car?
Is this turning ones back on a childhood hero, or merely achieving a life goal and then moving on? 

Before and After - Fuji S3 Pro sensor clean

Recently acquired an old Fuji Finepix S3 Pro DSLR camera. Several years old and probably never seen any maintenance. Noticed black spots on most but not all the images - have been trying the camera with 3 different lenses and it was far more apparent on certain lenses than others, typically most visible on wider zoom angles and smaller apertures. All this and some Google-assisted deduction led me to believe it was dirt on the actual sensor. (Fuji's so called SuperCCD in this case.)
Finally got my cleaning kit last night and tried it out (more pics of that job later).

Before:

Quite horrible...
and After:

Both pics taken with Nikon AF-S DX 18-55mm "kit" lens - the lens that worst showed the dirt.

Success!

What is it with women and hatchbacks?

As I lament and curse the BMW F20 and Merc A-class and wish they were sedans instead, I see this and find it very interesting.
Is the current rash of premium hatchbacks and the demise of the small sporting sedan to be blamed on the fairer sex?

Ultra low cost cars

Reading the newspaper review of the Dacia Logy this morning. I don't usually read newspaper reviews of cars - usually annoying nonsense written by opinionated journos who don't actually know anything. (Some would say this applies equally to actual car magazines but that is a blog for another day.) Two loud criticisms stood out. One quite legitimate of the lousy steering, and another of the safety. Or rather lack of: only 3-stars NCAP, shock horror. This was followed by the very Swedish comment that "even poor families should be able to afford safety", which is unfortunately the kind of vomit inducing socialist gunk you have to put up with if you insist on reading a Swedish newspaper.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying low-income families deserve to die, I am merely saying that safety costs and that this is a technical and economical point and should not be make into a political one.

After its final descent into self-righteousness the review ends off by saying: Rather spend your 100000kr on a second hand car.
I think that is good advice. Few low budget cars have made it to Scandinavian shores, but every time I read about one being launched in the UK, back to the Sao Penza (whenever that was) the advice given to buyers has been the same: Don't. Rather buy a second hand car. And in Europe, where second hand cars are so cheap, surely this makes sense? You can buy a far superior, often low mileage  second hand car for the same money. I can only think of one reason to buy the new car and that is the piece of mind, but surely you trust a 4 year Honda more than a new Dacia? (And if you don't, you need to go and read up on some statistics, because you should.)

Of course our champion of low income families' safety's point was that the second hand car would be safer. Now this is interesting. Would it really?
What caused the upset was Logy's 3-star rating. Now firstly NCAP's star ratings are, if simply taken at face value, wildly misleading. Secondly, they change over time. The second facelift of the Toyota Aygo recently scored 3-stars, yet it originally scored far higher - NCAP gets harder every year. Something to think about when comparing a new car to a four year old one.
And yet another reason why I can't see the point of the ultra-low cost car in the 1st world.

Observations on quality 1 of ?

Performing the rather odious (when its very cold and you'd rather be doing something else, like shopping for old Siekos on eBay) task of changing the wheels on my car. From summer to winter tyres, in case you live in a tropical country and don't know about this.

I usualy take this opportunity to clean the wheels that are coming off the car before putting them away. And so I was cleaning the filthy 16" alloy wheels that my Polo GT was supplied with. And musing on the qaulity of VW rims...
Now I am a little careless with cleaning my wheels, and drive fairly hard, so there was fairly extensive coating of brake dust...and beneath it, pitting in the paint. Hmmm, sad, and those wheels are only 14 months old. Yet the wheels on my previous car, a 2007 e90 320i, never suffered from this. You wiped off the brake dust and beneath it the paint was fine. And I remember making this same comparison, years ago in South Africa between an old e36 320i and a South Africa made CitiGolf (Golf Mk1) that I owned at the time. If you didnt clean those VW mags every month or so the paint took damage.

What can we learn from all of this? Well obviously: Buy a premium car and you don't have to wash your wheels as often.

Good bye JZB802.

34500kms, thats what I ended up doing in the Peugeot. Finally sold it last month. True lost cost motoring. Bought cheaply, fairly economical, serviced it cheaply myself, sold it.
It wasnt even a bad car. The lack of a rev-counter and AC annoyed, the lack of ABS terrified (in winter.) What the light weight gave, the soft suspension took away but it was possible to have a decent drive. Allowing for understeer and squidge, learning that it simply was not going to go exactly were you pointed it, it was even possible to cross roundabouts rapidly. But in the end it was boring and I kept it 18months, which is about average for me, and I didnt feel like paying to change the cambelt, so it had to go...

Whats the best thing about selling a car? Well you get to buy another one of course!

A Legacy 2.0D to replace my 320i?

On one hand:
I’ve never driven it. Well not yet. I’ve sat in this shape Legacy and I’ve driven the new Legacy which has exactly the same Boxer diesel engine. The petrol engines were revised for the new Legacy but apparently due to it being released in 2008, the diesel was left unchanged. More on that later…
The point is I have extrapolated (which I am good at) what the car is like and I like it. As CAR UK says about this Legacy in their GBU section: “Quirky Japanese 3-series”. And indeed that is the feeling. The interior quality is about 95% (at this spec) which will have to do. The interior feel is somewhere between e46 and e90, i.e. nearly perfect. The driving position is slightly more Japanese, reminiscent of a Honda, and slightly better than any 3-series.
The feel, at least of the new Legacy I drove, ONCE ON THE MOVE is completely different to a 3-series. It feels Japanese, light and easy on the controls. Not worse, just different. And it corners with the same accuracy as the 3-series (at lower speeds in any case, had no opportunity to test the high speed precision that separates my 320i from anything else I have ever driven.) Much of the cockpit reminds me of a 3 and this is all good. Even down the to the BMW-style economy gauge. (Something I think has a positive effect on ones driving, more so then merely having an instantaneous readout on the trip computer.)

As for the diesel bit? Well it is the Legacy the makes the most sense to buy, even here, even for me. Of course that would never be enough for me otherwise, indeed that “diesel is the only reasonable choice” affliction is enough to prevent me buying many other cars in this cars. (the C5 and Mondeo being prime examples)
BUT I LIKE this diesel. I’ve now driven 6 modern diesel cars, each with a different engine (A4 1.9 TDI, A4 2.0TDI, A3 1.9TDI, Focus TDCi, 520d and the Legacy) and this is a first one I actually like. The engine is nice. It’s not just awesomely torquey it also has a nice character. And I like the ridiculous induction noise threw the bonnet scoop. Pity about the 4500rpm redline, I hope I won’t come to hate that.

On the other hand:
I want a more exciting car. I want to feel more like I am on an episode of Top Gear. You car is more like that…faintly ridiculous and certainly flawed…but it sounds like it has the feel good factor.
My 320i is more the kind of car I usually try to buy: perfectly balanced, an excellent car, but hardly a barrel of laughs. It’s rather serious, isn’t it? There nothing wrong with it, no design flaws, no irritating features, no glaring omissions but nothing outrageous either. Most of what is good about it (the quality, the service, the handling, the high end of the rev-range) requires work and effort and time to appreciate. This is all very good…but not out rightly fun, no instant gratification. It’s a car that gives me a self-satisfied smile, but it doesn’t make me burst out laughing. (except for a bit in Norway.)

It’s for this reason that things like the Sicrocco, GTi and fast Meganes have started to tempt me. Smaller, nippier…worse…but more fun, more instant useable fun.

So what am I going to do about it? Maybe I’m going to buy a 4WD Japanese business man’s diesel saloon.* Oh dear. It’s even called a “Business”.
You must be right, deep down I am very boring.

F10

Yay, the best car in the world is no longer one of the ugliest!

That 405

Have now done almost exactly 18000kms in the 9 months since I bought the 405. I have been rather surprised at the lack of trouble.
An indicator cover fell off. Seems to fix this you have to buy a new indicator unit. So I did, it was cheap, easy to find and even easier to fit.
So not many problems...
The 405 also uses far less petrol than I would have thought possible. Certainly very much less than the SAAB 900i it replaced, but amazingly also slightly less than my 320i. So much for 20 years of advancement...ok, to be fair I tend to drive the BMW differently.
It got faster too. Seemed the engine just needed to be loosened up little. It is actually a very nice engine that, typically peaky like all SOHC 8 valvers of the time, but relatively smooth and pretty eager. I like it. It is however about the only eager thing about this car which I must admit is otherwise rather boring.

This may come as no surprise to the reader.
I of course grew up in a land denied cars like this and so can never quite shake the idea that this is an exotic car. I feel like this about most Peugeots and Citroens. (and '80s Renaults for that matter.) Yes, I know it is silly. There is nothing exotic about the 405. It doesnt even have the traditional French flair, or insanity for that matter. So far its been laughably simple to work on.

What a surprise eh? A simple, honest, straightforward, get you from A-to-B sedan. With a nice engine and slightly more power than its handling can cope with.

So I'm selling it...

Aygo

I had been planning to buy an Aygo as my 2nd ”commuter” car, when the falling petrol price and unwillingness to take out further loans in the face of the ”financial crisis” decided me to buy something old and cheap instead.

Hence the 1991 Peugeot 405, bought for less than the deposit on a typical 2 year old Aygo+.

The 405 is far better than expected, but time will tell how cheap it actually is to run compared to an Aygo. Needless to say it also needs more money spent on it (as always with a car like this). A decent radio, new brake discs, a cambelt change soon, with new shocks and new tyres coming up. Sigh…


Anyhow, all this nonsense made me miss out on trying out an Aygo, so, on leave and bored last week I decided go and see some small cars.
I took a look at a Picanto at my dad’s insistence, but it even he had to agree it seems obsolete now, as well as cramped and tinny after the new Ford Ka. Albeit less tinny than the Aygo…

The Ford Ka is very pretty, and quite comfortable inside for such a car. While it feels rubbish compared to the new Fiesta (or any car I currently use) it is leagues ahead of the Picanto or Aygo. However, like the Picanto, they didn’t want us to test drive one as the weather was lousy and a snow storm was about to start.

We skipped Hyundai as the i10 was bound to be much like the Picanto, and went to Toyota. After getting over their puzzlement that we didn’t want to see the new Avensis, they hauled out a Aygo+ 5dr, into the snow and muck and said “Why sit a showroom model, drive this one”.
(Before you ask about the Twingo2, there is no Renault dealer in my little town in Sweden.)

So it began…

Initially the Aygo was disappointing. Even tinnier than the Picanto it seemed a massive come-down after the Ka.
Then we started it. Very few new small cars sound like anything these days, unless they are pushed hard, then they sound horrid. This sounded interesting. The unpleasant Toyota/Daihatsu VVT whine so prevalent in the Sirion/Yaris 4-pot is completely overshadowed by the off-beat 3cyl thrum. The difference in sound is far more obvious than I would have believed!

Then off we went. Obviously it is not fast…but it feels quick around town. The willingness of the little engine makes up for a lot, although the gearshift is, like on the Sirion, awful. The electric power steering is lifeless, but unlike the Sirion, the car is so small and easy to “read” and place that it doesn’t seem to matter.
I then had the very interesting experience of taking it down the windy Åkersberga-Waxholm road. Full on snow now and there I was roaring along at great speed. (ok, I got to just over 70…that doesn’t sound like a lot [unless you are Swedish, they drive like sissies], but that speed on that road in my 405 would have had me in a ditch fast. I know…I have tried this road in the 405 a few times.)
The handling of Aygo is amazing. Simplicity and lightness and all that, well we knew Chapman was right, this just confirms it.
I have driven few cars more enjoyable and few cars better in the snow, which was the real surprise!

The newly fitted ESP system is also excellent. I have to say I have never driven anything in such bad weather and snow/slush like I drove that Aygo. Sliding all over the place to be sure, but controllable and damned fun. Amazing. The 405 requires great care in winter, my old 900 was equally clumsy in all conditions (in this case that’s a compliment), and snow/ice can cause some white knuckle moments in the 320i (admittedly due to it being a far faster car), but this was just crazy gratuitous abandon.

What a car, I love it!

(Remains to be seen if it is as much fun in the dry/summer. Perhaps then its lack of power would be a bigger issue…)

SAAB 99 Turbo, why there should be a new one!

From CAR UK's website:

----
Help CAR find the best hot hatch of all time
By Tim Pollard
19 January 2009 15:09
You've been voting over the past fortnight for your greatest hot hatch of all time – and there are still two weeks left to influence our poll. At the time of writing, the top ten is led (perhaps curiously!) by the Saab 99 Turbo, followed by the Lancia Delta Integrale, VW Golf GTi Mk1 and Peugeot 205 GTI. Have you voted yet? If not, scroll down to the poll at the foot of this page and click on your favourite pocket rocket. Voting closes on 1 February 2009, so spread the word and get your mates to vote too.
----
I don’t know if putting the SAAB 99 in was really in the spirit of the thing…but then again is the Delta Integrale?

My vote goes to the 205 GTi.
Honorable mentions should go to the Golf I GTI (for inventing the genre), the Golf 5 GTI (for making GTIs and Golfs cool again) and the Honda Civic VTI (flat one, just after the pop-up headlights, don’t even think it was on the list.)

This does however prove that lots of people liked the 99 Turbo, which to me atleast means that SAAB should be making a car in this class, yet they don’t! And havnt since the early 80s.
OOOOOPS.

Give the people what they want!

SAAB needs to make a Golf sized car, and it needs to be available in a turbocharged version 3-dr version.

The stupid thing is (stupid considering SAAB hasn’t don’t it) is that it would be easier to recreate the 99 Turbo than any other car on this list.

The day for things like the Golf 1 GTi and Pug 205 GTi is, lamentably, over. Maybe a turbocharged Aygo, but otherwise everything they try (207 GTi anyone? Polo GTi?) just winds up being boring or daft or both.

BUT we are currently firmly back in a turbocharged era, and the mainstream C-segment cars are now the size that the 99 was.
Everyone is already making powerful C-segment turbocharged cars…but only SAAB can do it with some pedigree and heritage.
Everyone makes a Golf sized FWD turbocharged 100kw+ hatch back now, how many can say they were doing it in the ‘70s? (No really, who?)

SAAB is in the unique position were they can shamelessly pawn their heritage (as everyone else has done: Beetle, PT Cruiser, Thunderbird etc), hark back to former glories (as many other keep trying: Polo GTi, 207 GTi etc) while still making a contemporary car!
A new 99 Turbo would be sellable purely on merit as a GTi competitor (they all sell, even the so-so ones) and as a retro mobile for those who miss and love the 99.

e90 vs 405

My 2nd car shopping continues.

I found an implausibly cheap 1990 SAAB 9000 for sale, I think it was a 9000CD 2.0 but not sure, very very old people who can’t drive anymore. This happens fairly often here and sometimes you can get a really amazing car. My old 900 was a similar story. Old guy bought it in 1985 with a bunch of extras, spared no expense maintaining it, got too sick to drive (or died, don’t recall) in 2000 and the car was taken it off the road. Grand daughter “found” it in the garage in 2005, a whole bunch of money was spend getting it back on the road, she got her license in it, drove it just other a year, then bought a new car and wanted rid of it. And I got a decent car for minimal money…

Sadly this wonderful 9000 was sold about 20mins before I got there. As they say in Swedish: “Fan men jag var så jävle arg!” (This is very rude, far ruder than the direct translation into English would imply and adequately expresses my emotions at the time.)

Anyhow, on Sunday went to go check the next car on the list. A 1991 Peugeot 405 GLX. I am a fan of older Pugs but at the same time scared of French cars.
This was owned by one little old lady (yes, really) from 1991 until the end of 2007. Then some other guy has had it nearly a year but doesn’t need it anymore.

First surprise: Keeping in mind I have only sat in 406s and 407s, the 405 seems so small and unassuming.
Second surprise: The spec…despite grandiose GLX badge: there isn’t any. Everything is manual, there is no rev counter, just a giant clock. Steering takes about a million turns lock to lock, very light though.
Third surprise: Slow. This is an 81kw 1900, the engine from the 205 GTi 1.9, and this 405 is not a heavy car, but it seemed very slow to me. I suppose considering the owner came with on the drive and there was no rev counter I probably didn’t rev it high enough.

Of course it is very difficult and totally unfair to drive somewhere in my 320i, then get out and attempt to objective about 10-25 year old cars. Obviously they all seem shockingly awful. (And vague, and worn, and spongy, and rubbery, and, and)

But this 405 was rather nice. Very very comfortable, more so than my 320i infact, and excellent visibility. For want of a better analogy it put me in the mind of a (much) more charming Toyota Carina E.

This week I have borrowed “my” old 85 900i back. Partially I am doing this to keep mileage off my 320i (on nearly 28000kms already) and partially I am doing this as it helps me be more reasonable when I go and test drive 9000s, 405s, 309s etc…

Very little in current production measures up to the e90…it’s just too hard to fair when climbing straight from it into some 20 year old relic.

Actually, my search may be over, I do like that 405…

The yawning chasm

Last week I needed to travel from my office in central Stockholm, to my boss' house in one of the southern suburbs. Fixing computer problem at her house...this is a common occurance for IT personal in smaller companies. You get used to it....best to view it as a perk.

In order to make this trip I walked a few hundred meters to the nearest tunnelbana (read subway for your English speakers) station, waited the inevitable few minutes, took the next subway train one stop to T-centralen, the central hub of the Stockholm "metro". Then I walked another few hundred meters to the central train station, waiting a few more minutes and them climbed onto a commuter train. Very nice, very clean, very comfortable and fast enought that the trip only took 20mins. Now I was at the train station for the correct suburb, getting to her house was my own problem.

All sounds very civilised doesn't it? Perphaps a little strange if you are South African and not accustomed to a functional public transit system.

In my previous job in South Africa I also often travelled out to directors houses to fix their errant home computers. But it was a very different trip. I walked out into the parking lot, got into a car and drove there.

The car I used depended on what was avaliable, sometimes as a I perk I got to drive the directors car itself to their house. This afforded me the opportunity to drive such beyond-my-means machines as a Audi A4, MG TF160 or Land Rover Freelander. The rest of the time I used whatever company pool car was avaliable, occasionally a bakkie (read 1ton pickup truck) or a VW Golf but most often a uniquely South African car called a Toyota Tazz.

From 1988 (a year late) the Toyota Corolla E90 was built in South Africa. Thoughout it's career it was the top selling car in the country. In 1992 when the E100 was luanched in the rest of the world, the E90 continued with some modifications. It was finally laid to rest in 1995 and replaced by the E110. Or was it? The hatch back version was allowed to live on as an entry level overrun model. To avoid confusion and for other reasons it was renamed the Toyota Tazz and was built, with minor revisions (like finally getting a 5-speed 'box in 2001), until 2006.
A 5-dr hatch back version of a Toyota Corolla E90, with entry level spec, powered by a carburettor-fed 1300 SOHC 12v "2E" motor developing 55kw. It produced this peak power at a heady 6000rpm, which interestingly was also it's red-line. Torque peak is a bit of misnomer for this engine, it implies that there was some, so I forget the figure but it was high up in the rev range.

Most people drove/drive Tazzs very slowly, the combination of the peaky engine and heavyish body led to pedestrian performance. It was possible to drive it slightly less slowly, you just had to rev it right to the red line (or rather appoximately to the redline, there being neither rev counter nor rev limiter) and keep it there. Provided you didn't mind the appalling fuel consumption and sounds of mechanical distress that resulted, it was possible to make respectable progress. Well it would have been it wasnt for the handling, which was awful.

Predictable early onset understeer till almost right on the limit. I say almost because just as you felt you were reaching the limit, there was a sudden onset of terminal oversteer. Hmmm...no oversteer is the wrong word, I am complicating and adding needless and underserved richness to the handling experiance this car supplied, I shall rather put it like this: Just when you thought the ever-present understeer was beginning to result in a front-end washout, the back snapped around and you died. Or ended up in a ditch or something.

I am getting carried away here describing the car. I could carry on about the lack of features and the bland interior and...and, but you get the point, it was a dull car.

Driving the same route, to do the same boring job, in the MG TF160 however was amazingly different. Wow. The proverbial gokart. It really did feel like one. I have heard/read this description applied to many vehicles, from small FWD hatch backs and Minis to the Ford Bantam Mk3 bakkie. Rubbish! However, a small, light mid-engined rear wheel drive sports car IS almost a gokart. Pointy, bouncy, urgent, instant, seemingly without inertia.
The combination of the excellent brakes and exteme nimbleness allowed one to achieve hightly illegal speeds on tiny suburban roads. (provided one could see far ahead: I am not stupid.)

I remember fondly these trips-to-bosses-houses I did, I think I remember all of them. Nice long trips, as rich people in SA tend to live far out of town. (for good reason...) Obviously the best ones were the two I did in the MG TF160. The Audi A4 2.0TDI Tiptronic lags rather behind this, the Land Rover Freelander Td4, Golf 4 1.6 and Ford Ranger 1800 1-ton pickup must lie a great distance away even from the Audi, far towards the lower end of this scale, were the Tazz also resides.

However, and now I finally come to the point (finally!!!), long as this linear scale must be, great as the distance between MG TF160 and Toyota Tazz 130 is, it shrinks to a single dot, a point, a spec of ink on a chart, when one zooms out far enough to see the see the difference between the Tazz 130 and public transport!

The Tazz may stink, it may have been a lousy driver's car, but the worst car you can drive yourself is still whole worlds better than the best train you can't. (Nevermind all the standing and bloody waiting!)