Buffalo Chicken Garbage Bread Recipe

If you are friends with me on Facebook, you've probably seen my plethora of food pictures, and you've probably noticed that several of them feature my Buffalo chicken garbage bread.  I decided to share the recipe with any of you who might be interested.  Enjoy!

You will need a small package of thin, boneless chicken breast, a bottle of Frank's original hot sauce, a stick of margarine or butter, two balls of pizza dough, a cup of tomato sauce, cooking spray, flour or olive oil(optional), and a medium-sized bag of mozzarella cheese.

1.  Melt the stick of butter (or only 2/3 of the stick if you want your Buffalo sauce to have more of a "kick" to it) in a small saucepan.  As the butter melts, preheat a large frying pan on another burner after spraying it with cooking spray.

2.  Take two 13 by 9 baking sheets (preferably with some type of lip going around the edges) and, if they're the type that needs greasing, grease them with the wrapper from the butter stick.  If you'd prefer, grease with a small amount of olive oil (but only if the baking sheet requires it).

3.  Add the hot sauce to the melted butter.  Stir well.  Reduce to approximately 25% heat and cover it.

4.  Add the chicken breast to the frying pan, add 1/8 inch of water, and cover.  Reduce to no more than 50% heat.

5.  Check the chicken after a few minutes; when it's ready to be turned, turn it.

6.  Stir the Buffalo sauce and adjust the heat so it remains at the cusp of its boiling point when covered.

7.  When the chicken appears to be completely white, move it from the frying pan to a cutting board or plate.  Dice it into pieces no larger than a cubic inch per piece in size.

8.  Add the chicken to the Buffalo sauce.  Stir well and let it cook, still on 25% heat.

9.  Pre-heat the oven to 425 degrees, or whichever temperature the label on your pizza dough says.

10.  Place a couple drops of olive oil or a small amount of flour on each ball of pizza dough.  Knead and toss the dough until each dough unit is thin and at least a foot in diameter.  Use a drinking glass to roll the dough out if needed.

11.  Take a knife and slice each dough unit lengthwise down the middle.  This should result in four dough units, each of which will be twice as long as it is wide.  Each dough unit will now be referred to as a loaf of garbage bread.

12.  Add pizza sauce to each loaf of garbage bread.

13.  Add a small amount of Buffalo chicken to each loaf, using a slotted spoon so an appropriate amount of sauce accompanies the chicken.

14.  Top each loaf with a moderately copious amount of mozzarella cheese, but be careful to leave approximately the first two inches in from each side of the dough uncovered (you'll see why later).

15.  Add another layer of chicken to each loaf, and drizzle some Buffalo sauce on top as well.

16.  Add a final layer of cheese.

17.  Pull the outer edges of each loaf up and pinch them together, to seal each loaf at the top.

18.  Make certain that there are at least a few inches between the loaves and the edge of the baking sheets so that you don't spill wet chicken in your oven and set your house on fire.

19.  Bake for 13 to 15 minutes or until done.

20.  Remove from oven and let sit until it can safely be touched.  Slice and serve!

21.  Make certain that your stove and oven are completely turned off.

My Homemade Linguine Alfredo with Spicy Sausage

Happy New Year, everyone!  Most of the posts in this blog have been automotive in nature, so I'm going to make a New Year's resolution to focus more on the "chow" and "so much more" end of things in 2013.  As can be guessed by the title of this post, I am about to explain how I make my homemade linguine Alfredo with spicy sausage.

Ingredients:

6 links spicy Italian sausage
Half of a package (about 7 oz) of linguine (I use whole wheat pasta but any kind would work.)
2 cups of light cream
1 cup of finely grated Parmesan cheese
Half of a stick of butter or margarine
Pepper, garlic salt, and whichever other spices you like

1.  If the sausage is frozen, place it in a casserole dish filled with half of an inch of water, and nuke it for four minutes to thaw and kill any bacteria.  Reduce this time to one minute, with an eighth inch of water if the sausage is not frozen.

2.  Bring a large pot of water to a boil on maximum heat.

3.  Melt the butter or margarine in a medium saucepan on maximum heat.

4.  Reduce heat to medium and add the light cream to the margarine.  Add pepper, garlic salt, etc., and stir for a couple minutes.  Increase heat to about 60%.

5.  Place about a quarter inch of water in a frying pan and add the sausage.  Cover and cook on about 40%, or leave uncovered and cook on about 75%.

6.  Cover the light cream/butter/spice mixture.  Let it come to a soft boil.

7.  By now, the water should be boiling.  Add the pasta to the water.  Stir as soon as the pasta is soft enough to be completely submerged in the water.  After a minute or so of stirring, cover and reduce to approximately 75% heat, or leave uncovered at 90% heat.  Leaving it any hotter will cause it to overflow; I know this from experience.  If it looks like it will overflow, reduce the heat and/or stir it.

8.  Add the Parmesan to the Alfredo sauce.  Be sure to stir constantly as you do this so the cheese doesn't gum up the bottom of the pan as opposed to blending in.  Add another dollop of pepper.  Stir for a few minutes or until the cheese looks to be blended with the cream mixture.  Cover and let it sit at 50% heat.

9.  Turn the sausage links.  Let them cook a bit longer.

10.  Slice the sausage into bite-sized, well, bites.  Uncover the pan, turn the heat to 80%, and let the remainder of water boil off so the sausage can "crisp" a bit.

11.  Stir the Alfredo sauce for another minute.  If it's frothing at the top and you can see only the slightest hint of Parmesan on the spoon, congratulations, you've nailed it!

12.  Kill the heat on the sausage and Alfredo burners.

13.  Drain the pasta, and return it to the pot.  Reduce the heat on this burner to a low simmer.

14.  QUICKLY add the Alfredo sauce, stirring it well so the pasta is completely coated.  Add the sausage in a similar manner and mix thoroughly.

15.  Cook a frozen vegetable so you can counteract the fatty goodness that is linguine Alfredo with spicy sausage.  Or don't.  You DID use LIGHT cream after all.

This should easily feed a group of four or five, or provide one person with a few days' worth of leftovers.  Freeze whatever you don't re-heat within a few days.

Enjoy!

2010 Honda Accord EX sedan vs. 2002 Volkswagen Passat GLX wagon

As some of you know, due to the fact that my 2010 Accord is not as good at transporting a keyboard and/or a drum set as I'd like, and due to the fact that I transport said objects fairly regularly, I had been searching for a cheap, second, used vehicle of the wagon variety for a month or so.  This search concluded a couple weeks ago when I purchased a 2002 Volkswagen Passat GLX wagon with 131,500 miles on the odometer.  It's dark gray/blue on the outside with a gray leather interior and, of course, it's a five-speed.  Now that I've driven it a bit, I figure it's time for a side-by-side comparison of my two vehicles.  Before we begin, though, here are the hard facts:

2010 Accord EX Sedan Specs             2002 Passat GLX Wagon Specs

Engine:  2.4L I-4, 190 hp                     2.8L V-6, 190 hp
Transmission:  5-speed manual            5-speed manual
Mileage:  75,000                                  132,000
Current Approx. Value:  $11,000        $7,000

Now for the comparison:

Power/Acceleration:  Both cars make 190 hp.  However, the cars' power delivery couldn't be more different.  The Accord's engine uses Honda's VTEC (electronically controlled valve timing) system and, in true Honda fashion, makes more power the closer it gets to its redline.  In other words, there isn't a whole lot down low, but it rips once you get past 4K or 5K RPM, especially in the lower gears.  On the other hand, the Passat uses a V6 and, while it doesn't rip to the redline like the Accord's four-banger does, it has a much meatier midrange and puts down a good deal more torque (due to the fact that it's a V6).  While outright acceleration isn't as different as one might think, the Passat's more usable midrange power gives it the win in this category.  Advantage:  Passat.

Fuel Economy:  The Accord gets nearly 30 mpg on 87-octane.  The Passat gets approximately 24 on 91-octane.  Advantage:  Accord by a landslide.

Transmission and Clutch:  While the VW has a short, stubby, slick shift knob made of genuine wood, there's a reason that the critics rave about Honda's manual transmissions and clutches.  There's no comparison.  The Honda's clutch is feather-light compared to the VW and is telepathically easy to read. Its shifter is slick, direct, and surgically precise.  The VW's transmission and clutch aren't bad, but they aren't nearly as good as the Honda's.  Advantage:  Accord.

Ride:  Both cars ride firmly but compliantly.  However, the VW does a slightly better job soaking up the bumps.  Advantage:  Passat.

Steering/Handling:  Again, both cars steer (pardon the pun) toward the sporty side of the midsize car continuum.  Here, though, the Accord wins due to its perfectly weighted hydraulic assist steering and its low profile 17-inch tires.  In other words, it drives more athletically than anything its size has a right to.  Advantage:  Accord.

Quietness:  The VW's wagon body style generates a bit more wind noise than the Accord's sedan body.  However, it is superior at squelching engine and tire noise, as well as noise from other vehicles.  Advantage:  Passat.

Ergonomics:  I thought the Accord would win this category by a landslide, but this one's too close to call.  The VW's audio controls win, but the Accord's other controls are better laid out.  This one's a tie.  

Interior Fit, Finish, and Ambience:  Honda builds quality products, and my Accord is no exception.  The interior materials and assembly quality are good.  That said, there are some glaring oversights.  No $24K new car should have hard plastic door panels where the arm touches.  Its cause also isn't helped by the fact that the Passat GLX's interior would look at home in an Audi A4.  Nice leather, real wood trim, lots of soft-touch surfaces, etc. will do that.  That, and while the Accord's gauges use cool-looking LEDs for illumination, the Passat's blue gauge and display back-lighting is epic!  Advantage:  Passat.

Features and Amenities:  The Accord is well-equipped.  The Passat is loaded.  As in rain-sensing wipers, memory driver's seat and mirrors, auto tilt passenger side mirror when reverse is selected, universal garage door opener, heated leather seats, trip computer, automatic climate control, power operation for BOTH front seats, power folding side mirrors, premium sound, etc.  Advantage:  Passat.

Cold-Weather Friendliness:  The Accord heats up a little more quickly and has a better defroster, but it doesn't have the Passat's heated seats, heated washer-fluid nozzles, or exterior temperature gauge that dings when the temperature dips below 40 degrees.  Functionality vs. features.  Advantage:  Both.  

Sound System:  The Accord lacks the Passat's tape deck but comes with a six-CD changer in the dash vs. the Passat's single-disc player, as well as an auxiliary input jack.  Both cars have steering wheel-mounted audio controls, but only the Accord lets the driver switch audio sources on the wheel.  The Accord's also has two front power ports vs. one in the Passat, and those in the Accord shut off when the ignition is turned off (useful for not draining the battery).  That said, the eight-speaker Monsoon stereo in the Passat simply spanks the six-speaker Honda unit in the Accord as far as sound quality goes.  Advantage:  Passat.

Driver Comfort:  The Passat has leather upholstery, memory for the driver's seat, and heated front seats, as well as an auto-dimming rearview mirror (something that is incredibly useful).  Its visibility is also superior due to the wagon body style.  The Accord's front seats are firmer, more supportive, and generally better shaped, and the Honda's clutch is much more user-friendly.  Advantage:  Both.

Rear Comfort:  The Passat has leather upholstery and an individual reading light for each outboard passenger.  The seat itself is very supportive, and the Passat's center rear seat is much more comfortable than that in the Accord.  However, the Accord has rear A/C vents, as well as a more spacious bench in general (wider for three-across travel).  Advantage:  Both.

Cargo Utility:  The Accord is a sedan with a one-piece folding seatback and a small ski pass through.  The Passat has a 60/40 split-folding rear seat and it folds flat.  It's also a boxy wagon.  Even though small-items storage is vastly inferior to the Accord up in the first row, the Passat's wagon versatility wins out here, and it's why I bought it in the first place.  Advantage:  Passat by a landslide.  

So, which is the better car?  On paper, the Passat is.  It won more categories, and it is several vehicles at once.  It's a luxury car, a highway cruiser, and a brilliant cargo hauler at the same time.  However, there's a simplicity to the Accord that is refreshing at times.  There are fewer electronics that can go wrong, it burns regular gas (as opposed to the 91-octane juice that the VW demands), it burns LESS gas than the VW, it's easier to drive smoothly, and it drives more athletically.  Advantage:  Both.  Both are truly excellent cars that are good at different things and don't truly fail at much of anything.  

Fall 2012 Albany Auto Show

Yesterday, I hit up the Fall 2012 Albany Auto Show at the Empire State Plaza.  My observations:

 Am I getting taller, or are more and more mid-size and full-size family sedans losing rear headroom?  I could not comfortably fit in the back of the Hyundai Sonata or the Nissan Altima, and could only barely fit in the back of the new Ford Fusion and Toyota Camry.  Even the Honda Accord seems to have lost some headroom in its latest redesign, though it was at least passable.  As for the center-rear seat on any of these vehicles, forget about it!  Not a chance!  Do these manufacturers seem to think that six-footers don’t exist anymore?  It’s a shame, because the seats themselves were pretty good in all of these sedans, and legroom wasn’t an issue in any of them.  The fact that I felt like I had more headroom in the back of a Scion TC than most of the aforementioned sedans just doesn’t make sense.  

 Nissan’s display was pretty impressive.  The new Altima is pretty decent, while the redesigned Sentra has shot up enormously in interior packaging and quality.  The back seat in that car is HUGE and was perhaps more comfortable than that in its big brother Altima.  The interior was also significantly more upscale than that of the Sentra I rented this summer while in Indiana.  It had probably the cushiest door armrests I’ve ever experienced.  They also had a Frontier pickup with a six-speed stick.  Surprisingly nice truck!  I’d probably buy one if I was in the market for a pickup.  

 The Dodge Dart, while quite a nice car overall, had ABYSMAL rear seat headroom. 

The Honda Insight absolutely stunk.  Sure, it gets good gas mileage and has a low sticker price for a hybrid, but it’s otherwise pretty terrible.  It just felt cheap in so many ways; it’s like Honda took a page from the American penalty boxes of the mid 90s.  

 The Honda Crosstour’s cloth front seats were awesome (better even than the ones in my Accord, which is odd given that they’re virtually the same car).  However, why would the wagon version of a car have less rear headroom than the sedan version?!

 The Toyota Avalon and Cadillac XTS were both very nice, but not quite as opulent as I’d expect given their missions as the figurative AARP modes of transport.  That, and I unintentionally locked myself in the back seat of the Avalon (the childproof door locks were engaged).  

 The Toyota Camry was pretty unimpressive.  

 The new Ford Fusion was pretty decent, but several of the controls seemed overly complex and the interior space could’ve been managed more efficiently given the car’s humungous exterior size.  

 The Honda CR-V was quite a bit more pleasant to sit in than either the Toyota RAV-4 or the Subaru Forester (both of them felt somewhat cheap).  

 The Hyundai Santa Fe Sport was OK, but its front headrests protruded far too much in front of the seatback itself for a human-shaped driver to be reasonably comfortable.  

 BMW X1 was mighty impressive!

 The Mazda Miata never gets old!

 It’s hard to believe that the Chevy Cruze comes from the same company that made the Cavalier way back when.  I’d go so far as to say that the Cruze has a nicer interior than the new Honda Civic.  That definitely wasn’t the case ten years ago.  

 The Porsches were actually unlocked!  While they were incredible to sit in, I’m not convinced that they were worth four times the asking price of a new Honda Accord LX.  

 The Cadillac ATS was decent but didn’t blow me away.  I also didn’t realize that the base model used a geriatric foot-pedal parking brake as opposed to the electronic one found on the uplevel trims.  

And now onto the vehicles I would seriously consider if I was in the market for a new vehicle.  Before I list the contenders, I would hope that my next car would have as many of the following as possible:  manual transmission, kickin’ stereo, extendable sun visors (one of the best features of my current car), iPhone integration (Bluetooth and USB hookups), good leather seats front and back, lots of cargo flexibility (preferably a wagon or hatchback), and good power and fuel economy.  

 Acura TSX Wagon.  No surprise here.  Fantastic car.  But why won’t they offer it with the TSX sedan’s excellent six-speed manual?  And why doesn’t it have extendable sun visors when the (cheaper) Accord on which it’s based has them?

 Acura ILX.  Surprisingly nice interior given its Civic roots, but backseat headroom stinks, the sun visors don’t extend, and you can get a stick shift and surround sound, but not on the same ILX.  The final nails in the coffin for this one are the one-piece folding rear seat (as opposed to split) and the fact that it’s not that much cheaper than the larger and better TSX.  

 Ford Focus hatchback.  This one was impressive.  They had a Titanium edition 5 speed model at the show, though I would also seriously consider the new ST edition (you’d sacrifice some luxury for a huge boost in power and handling).    It ticked most of the boxes on my list, but at nearly $30K as equipped, it’s dangerously close to entry-level luxury car territory and it’s a FOCUS.  That, and one of the power window switches was catching on the surrounding trim; seems like a pretty bad build quality gaffe on a pricey new car.  

 Mazda CX-5.  You can get one for just over $20K with a six-speed and a decent list of standard equipment.  And it gets 35 MPG on the highway, which is exceptional for a small crossover.  It REALLY impressed me!  But why, why, WHY can’t I get decent options (and colors) without being required to buy an automatic transmission?  They might not even include Bluetooth on the stick-shift model and they definitely don’t offer the upgraded stereo on the base model.  That said, the base six-speed model is still an enormous value with awesome MPG!

 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen TDI, Golf TDI, GTI, and Passat TDI (all with six-speed stick).  These were fantastic cars!  All had split-folding rear seats, three out of the four were hatchbacks or wagons, they all had good extendable sun visors, the interiors were well-made, the seats were outstanding up front and at least decent in the back, and they just felt inexplicably premium.  The wild cards here would be the quality of the sound systems, the availability of iPhone integration, and the long-term reliability.  

 2013 Honda Accord.  It’s a fantastic car.  It has a TON of standard equipment (rear camera, Bluetooth, dual-zone auto climate control, etc.), it’s great on gas, it’s well-built, and it just feels “right”.  But Honda in its infinite wisdom only allows stick-shift sedan buyers the choice of two exterior colors per trim, requires that you get a black cloth interior (gray cloth, ivory cloth, and leather of any color are reserved for automatic buyers), and limits them to the base sound system.  And why can’t they use a split-folding rear seat instead of a one-piece design?  Still a fantastic car, though.  

 Subaru Outback.  Wow!  Just wow!  Truly a comfortable, roomy car in every seat.  Great cargo versatility.  Has all the right connectivity features.  Can’t get a decent stereo with the stick-shift model though.  

 I never thought I’d say this, but, all things considered, my favorite car at the entire show was a Buick.  Yes, you read that correctly.  A Buick Verano.  It had the best front seats of anything I sat in, a good enough back seat for me to ride comfortably for a couple hours (though without as much stretch-out room as the Accord and a few others), a split-folding back seat with a big pass-through (almost makes up for it not being a wagon), extendable visors, good electronics, etc. etc. etc.  And they’re introducing a turbo six-speed edition in 2013 that still gets 30 MPG on the highway while making 250 horsepower.  It’ll include leather, Bose sound system, heated seats and steering wheel, and the list goes on and on.  And virtually every critical review that’s been published about the Verano Turbo has been glowing!  

Am I suddenly 85 years old?  Or has the GM bankruptcy of 2008-2009 been among the best things to ever happen to the auto industry?

The American Auto Industry Restructuring

Here's the note I wrote in 2008 about how the American automakers should have restructured back in 2008-2009.  Let's see if how it compares to what actually happened.  

General Motors:

Ditch all brands save for Chevy and Cadillac. Get Saab back to Sweden and put an end to the badge-engineered crap already. Ditch Hummer altogether. 

---  Well, they ditched most of their brands, and kept four.  They got rid of Saab, but it evaporated anyway.  And as for "badge-engineered crap", there are only three examples I can think of.  One is the entire GMC Truck lineup, which still blows my mind.  Why keep the most redundant brand around?!  The other two examples are the Cadillac Escalade lineup and the Buick Verano (which isn't really badge engineering so much as platform sharing).  

Chevy: Simplify the lineup as follows, ditching all cars except the following:

Cobalt--Replace it with the upcoming Cruze economy car. Offer a 2.2 liter 4 as the base motor, and offer the 2.4 liter Ecotec as an upgrade, with or without turbo/supercharging. 

-----They do indeed offer two motors on the Cruze, and one of them is turbocharged.  Score!

Malibu--Keep as is, only offer a manual transmission with the four cylinder motor. 

-----Welp...no stick shift version, but in the name of fuel economy, the V6 has been replaced by a turbo four and there's a mild hybrid version.  

Impala--Replace the current design with a Chevy-badged Pontiac G8. Offer a 4.6 Northstar V8 in the LTZ model. The G8 GXP, with its monster motor and six speed stick, would become the new Impala SS. 

-----They ended up redesigning the Impala and keeping it as a larger alternative to the Malibu, but it'll be powered by the Malibu's four-banger or the corporate 3.6 liter V6.  However, the SS will be coming over, and it will essentially be a G8 with a Chevy badge, a big V8, and hopefully a 6MT>  

Corvette--Don't change a thing. 

New Camaro, don't change a thing. Just make sure they offer a turbocharged Ecotec 4 as the base motor. 

-----Minus the fact that you still can't get a four-banger in the Camaro, they took my advice.  Wouldn't be surprised to see it, given that the Mustang will probably be getting EcoBoost power soon.  

Give Chevy a version of the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky. It's a good product. 

-----No dice....

Equinox--Replace the current one with a rebadged Saturn Vue. 

-----They did release a new, better Equinox, but it's not the Vue.  However, the Captiva (sold only to rental fleets) is a re-badged Vue.  

Traverse--Keep as is

Keep the Suburban as a fleet special only. 

-----Unfortunately they still offer both the Tahoe and Suburban full-size SUVs.  Not a fan.  

Colorado--Redesign it; it's uncompetitive. Offer it with a turbocharged Ecotec 4, the 3.6 V6, or a 4.6 Northstar V8. 

-----Gonna be redesigned.  Not sure about motors yet.  

Silverado--Keep as is, but replace the 4.3 liter V6 with the 3.6 liter one. Ditch the 4.8 and 5.3 V8s, and replace both with a 4.6 Northstar V8. Keep the 6.0 V8 and 6.6 diesel V8 for heavy duto models. 

-----See above.  

The only motors for the whole lineup would be 2.2 and 2.4 liter Ecotec 4 bangers, the 3.6 V6, the 4.6 liter Northstar V8, the Corvette's (and Impala SS's) V8s, and the Duramax diesel V8. 

-----Aside from the 3.6L V6 being (practically) the only V6 they offer, they haven't done too much as far as engine lineup simplification goes.  

Cadillac:

Keep the entire CAR line-up as is....and offer a de-contented DTS sedan with 3.6 V6 for deflecting Buick customers (old farts). Ditch the XLR (too low volume). Move the Escalade onto the Chevy Traverse's platform and power it with either a Northstar V8 or the high power unit from the Corvette/Impala SS/CTS-V. Redesign the SRX and offer 3.6 V6 or Northstar V8 power. 

-----They ditched the old-fart mobiles, kept the excellent CTS (and CTS-V), added a 3-series fighter (the ATS), re-did the SRX, and regrettably kept the Escalade.  

Ok, one company down. Two to go....

Chrysler: Keep all three brands, but eliminate badge-engineering. 

Dodge: Re-do the Caliber's interior, but keep its functionality.

Re-do the Avenger entirely and re-name it the Stratus. Offer a manual gearbox with the 2.4 liter 4 cylinder and make the only V6 upgrade the 3.5 liter one. 

----Nope, they didn't upgrade this car too much aside from the interior.  They did add the company's excellent Pentastar V6 though as the only upgraded engine.  

Freshen the Charger and offer with the 3.5 liter V6, 4.0 liter V6 from the vans, and the Hemi V8s. Ditto for the Challenger, and offer the SRT8 versions of both with 6 speed sticks to take on the Impala/Camaro SS. 

----They upgraded it with the Pentastar V6, but forgot to make a stick available on the hot versions.  

Grand Caravan: Re-do the interior and replace the 3.3 and 3.8 liter motors with the 3.5 V6 from the passenger cars. Offer 8 passenger seating. 

-----They did exactly that, minus the 8 seat capacity and plus an even better motor (the Pentastar).  

Dakota: Re-do it, and offer with 4 liter V6 from vans and Charger/Challenger as the base engine. Offer the Hemi as an upgrade. 

-----They dropped this model, and rightfully so.  

Ram: Keep as is, replace the 3.7 V6 and 4.7 V8 with the 4.0 liter V6. 

-----They added the Pentastar and are phasing out the 4.7 V8.  They also added an 8AT with a rotary shift knob.....strange......

Chrysler: Make this strictly a premium brand. Ditch all models except the.....

300....freshen it up and make it a genuine luxury vehicle. Offer with a 4.0 liter V6 or Hemi V8. 

-----They did exactly that, but instead of a 4.0 V6, they used the Pentastar V6.  

Town and Country: Keep as is; limit engine choices to the 4.0 liter V6. Freshen the interior and offer 8 passenger seating. 

-----See above, and what I wrote under Dodge Grand Caravan.  

Jeep: Ditch everything except the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee. Replace the GC's current V6 and 4.7 V8 with a 4.0 liter V6. Keep the Hemi as an option. Offer a stretch version with 3rd row seating as a hook for deflecting Dodge Durango customers. Nicen up the interior. 

-----They still have a few crappy models out there, but the Grand Cherokee is a hell of a lot nicer than it was a few years ago.  Still no seven seat version, though (oh wait, they re-introduced the Durango and it's basically a stretched Grand Cherokee).  

Ford.....

Ditch the Mercury brand altogether. 

-----Look what happened!

Import the European Focus. Our current one stinks. 

-----Look what happened!

Keep the 2010 Fusion as is. Ditto for the Taurus. 

-----New Fusion looks KILLER.  Taurus is getting a bit old.  

Kill off the Crown Vic and Lincoln Town Car. 

-----Look what happened.  

Re-do the Ranger and offer with turbo 4 or 3.5 V6 power. 

-----It's no longer sold here.  

Keep F-series as is, replace engine lineup with either Eco V6 or 5.4 V8. 

-----Yup, it has the EcoBoost V6 now and it's selling crazily well!

Keep extended length Expedition for fleet sales. 

-----Both Expedition models are around, still.....ugh!

Ditch all other SUVs except the Flex and Edge. Offer 8 passenger seating in the Flex, and offer a turbo 4 motor in the Edge. 

-----Nope.....the Explorer was re-done, as was the Escape.  Both are decent.  And indeed, I'm pretty sure they all offer the EcoBoost four-banger now.  

Keep the Mustang as a niche vehicle. But make the manual gearbox a 6 speed already?!

-----Look what happeened.  

As for Lincoln.....keep the MKZ and MKS as they are, but offer a V8 in the MKS. Move the Navigator to the Flex platform and make it visually distinct. Differentiate the MKX from the Flex more than it already is and offer a 3rd row of seats. 

-----This brand still needs a kick in the butt!

And I'll still happily be driving my 99 Honda Accord for years to come as these 3 companies try to get their shit together.

-----In summary, all three companies ended up implementing several of the changes I thought (in 2009) that they should implement.  I still might do a couple things differently but color me impressed.  

Rental Car Review -- 2012 Nissan Sentra 2.0S

As some of you know, I took a three-day trip to Bloomington, Indiana in early July to attend the wedding of one of my closest personal friends.  He also happens to be a killer musician and composer; you should check his stuff out at www.ryanmchase.com .  It was a FANTASTIC weekend on so many levels!

Ok, Dan, what does all that have to do with the title of this post?  Oh, yeah, I rented a car while in Indiana from Ace Rent-A-Car.  If you've never heard of Ace, well, you live under a rock.  Nah, in all seriousness, they only have locations in the Indiana area.  That said, they were courteous and professional, and transported me between their location and the Indianapolis Int'l Airport in a sweet Mercedes-Benz Sprinter van.  Their prices were more than reasonable, too, and they weren't inordinately pushy regarding the unnecessary insurance options they offered.

Onto the car, now. . .

Whenever I would accompany my father to rental car counters in the past (something I did on several occasions), he would be offered a choice of two to three different vehicles, and usually none of the choices matched the specific model listed on the website.  With that in mind, I debated internally which car I would select if offered the choice in the "midsize" class (with a couple exceptions, midsize in rental car terminology really equals compact in EPA terminology).  My top choices would have been, in no particular order, the Chevy Cruze, the Ford Focus, the Hyundai Elantra, or the Honda Civic.

However, I was told that they had a Nissan Sentra for me.  Surprisingly, there was no choice between that model and another one.  Coincidentally, the Sentra was the car listed on their website when I booked the rental.  It worked out ok, though, as the car did what I needed it to do just fine.  I was surprised about a few things, though, and some of these surprises were of the pleasant variety.

I got in the car and, as I always do when entering a car for the first time, adjusted my seat, mirrors, etc.  Doing so was generally straightforward, and most every control was where I expected it to be.  I optimistically searched for Bluetooth buttons on the steering wheel (fruitlessly) and a USB port through which to connect my iPhone (semi-fruitfully).  What I found was an eighth-inch auxiliary input jack on the stereo head unit (a standard feature in most new cars today), as well as what looked to be an old tower PC's parallel port on crack (labeled "iPod").  Given that no cable was present for the "iPod"port, I proceeded to connect my phone through the auxiliary jack.  Just as I finished up, the rental car guy returned with the requisite iPod cable.  I plugged it in and.....boom!  I could now control the music end of my phone through the stereo's head unit and steering-wheel controls.  I still don't understand why certain manufacturers require specific cables to use their iPod interfaces (Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, and Volkswagen, I'm talking to you), but having such an interface was nice, as my 2010 Accord only has the auxiliary input jack.

I drove away from the rental car lot, parked after a few minutes, and fiddled with the tone controls on the stereo.  Once I doped them out, I realized that the stereo sounded quite good for an econobox, non-name brand system.  Bass was more earthy than in my Accord, and the clarity was definitely better-than-acceptable.  Could this system rival the ELS surround system in a new Acura?  Not a chance.  For an OEM system, though, it was more than OK.  My one ergonomic beef with the stereo (and actually with the entire car) was that the display screen was small, which made scrolling through song or album titles a bit of a tedious process.

After leaving the lot, I noticed a few other things.  First, I noticed that the outside temperature gauge was showing triple digit temperatures.  They stayed that way all weekend.  I also noticed that the air conditioner (controlled by three simple knobs, each containing one button) generally had no trouble keeping up with such temperatures.  I've been in cars with subpar air conditioners (Mazda comes to mind) so this was a nice surprise.

The car rode pleasantly enough, though larger bumps reminded me that, yes, I was driving a compact car (and one in its final years before a redesign).  I don't know this for sure but I'd guess that the steering was electrically assisted, given the insanely low effort and the notable lack of road feel.  Roadholding was OK for the most part but, again, it was obvious that this was a Sentra 2.0S and not the sportier SE-R Spec V model.

Lots of my driving was done at highway speeds, and at these speeds, the Sentra was impressively quiet for a compact car, and adequately quiet when compared to larger cars like my Accord.  This, combined with the responsive cruise control, made this an easy car to drive on the highway.

That said, the seats were a bit disappointing.  I like firm, supportive seats in my cars, and my Accord has the firmest seats I've sat in.  These seats were quite soft, which was nice for my first five minutes in the car.  After a while, though, they just didn't cut it.  That, and after setting the driver's seat so I could drive comfortably, rear legroom all but vanished.  My Accord can seat six footers one behind the other, comfortably.

Also disappointing was the drivetrain.  The Sentra 2.0S, as suggested by its name, has a 2.0 liter inline-four engine.  In the S model, this engine is mated to a CVT (continuously variable transmission).  CVTs, unlike conventional automatic (or manual) transmissions, don't have a pre-set number of gear ratios.  They utilize a belt and pulley system, and the pulleys change in diameter to continuously vary the ratio of engine speed to vehicle speed.  These transmissions have replaced conventional automatics in most of Nissan's lineup, and are becoming increasingly common in other manufacturers' lineups (Subarus and front wheel drive Audis come to mind).  Why?  The EPA tends to rate CVT-driven cars' fuel economy higher than that of cars with normal (torque-converter) automatics.  I wouldn't be surprised to see CVTs proliferate through more manufacturers' spec sheets in the future, and I have mixed feelings about this.  As for how the CVT performed in the Sentra.....well, it was less annoying than I thought it'd be.  It was still annoying though.

Because they don't have stepped gear ratios, CVTs eliminate most of the "shift-shock" experienced by people in manual or automatic transmission-equipped vehicles, which translates to a smoother ride when accelerating.  However, CVTs tend to peg the engine's RPM at its power or torque peak until cruising speed is reached (depending on how much acceleration the driver's right foot demands).  This results in an irritating, droning sound until the car reaches a set speed (at this point, the pulleys change diameter and the engine slows down to a couple thousand RPM).  In a car with a torquey V6 engine, I could see a CVT being reasonable (the engine would have enough power that the transmission wouldn't constantly peg it at its redline).  However, in a smaller car with a small four-banger (like the Sentra), there simply wasn't enough power (a) for quick bursts of acceleration or (b) for the engine's drone to not become annoying after a while.  I had to floor the gas on several occasions to accelerate reasonably, and it was loud.

Lastly, I'd like to discuss several contradictions and curiosities I noticed in my time with the Sentra.  So, in no particular order . . .

1.  The headliner was made of a luxurious, woven material, but several other trim pieces were made of hard, unyielding plastic.

2.  The car came with keyless entry, however not only did the keyfob lack a trunk button, but opening the trunk with the key if the doors were not first unlocked set off the car's alarm system.

3.  The car looked to have two map lights by the rearview mirror, when in fact, it was really only a single light.  Cost cutting, anyone?

4.  The climate control knobs rotated with true, machined precision, but the turn signal stalk felt flimsy.

In summary, the Sentra worked just fine as a rental car.  That said, I don't see myself buying one anytime soon.  It's not because it's a bad car (it's not), but it strikes me as the budget-priced compact car that Buick never had in the 2000s.  Here's why:

1.  The seats were soft and initially comfortable, but support faded after a while.  Sounds like Buick.
2.  The A/C was easy to use, and was strong.  Again, sounds like Buick (or any other American car).
3.  While the CVT caused the engine to drone under my heavy right foot, it was smooth.  That, and the more conservative acceleration habits of an older customer likely would keep the engine spinning at a reasonable enough speed so as not to be annoying.
4.  The car was impressively quiet for its size.  Again, like a Buick.
5.  The ride was smooth, the car was very easy to drive, the handling wasn't even close to sporty, and the steering was effortlessly light and devoid of any road feel.  Sounds like a Buick to me.
6.  Fit-and-finish was hit or miss, and some materials left something to be desired.  Buick all the way.
7.  The car worked just fine as an appliance, but did nothing to ignite any passion.  Oh so Buick.

By Buick, I'm referring to the brand before GM went bankrupt and re-organized itself.  At that time (and before), the Sentra seemed quite competitive, while several GM products (particularly the Buicks) had gotten long-in-the-tooth.  In 2012, however, Buick is putting out some great products (if I wrote that even two years ago, I'd be questioning my own sanity), and it's the Sentra that felt long-in-the-tooth.  My, how the tables have turned.

Long time no post . . .

I'm back!  My apologies for the delay between posts, but I'm hoping to post at least twice a week starting tonight!  So here goes!