The paper theory: an apologetic.

I was driving an LR3 today in rush hour traffic on I405 when I was struck suddenly by a floating epiphany: though I was comfortable, cool and isolated from harshness and noise, I was completely bored by the Land Rover that I was piloting. On paper, this vehicle was fantastic, but from the driver's seat it was about as enticing as cauliflower.

And this is the heart of the theory: cars are not mathematical equations. When you attempt to formulate a vehicle into pro and con lists, pluses and minuses, or numeric values you take away the goodness and end up with a Saturn. If a car adds up on paper, it will be terrible. Conversely, the cars that make no sense, the ones in which any level of rational thought would prevent a person from turning the key in the ignition, are the good ones.

A Ferrari, any Ferrari, is loud, expensive, uncomfortable, impractical and inefficient. A real Jeep is small, noisy, harsh and slow. Motorcycles are dangerous, loud, impractical and did I mention dangerous? Yet each of those vehicles is far better than the sea of beige that sensible cars represent. A car that fails the paper test, the mathematical formula that some apparently apply to the purchase of a Civic or RAV4, will thrill you. It will ensnare your soul. A car that fails the paper test will mesmerize and seduce you.

And that's why I own such terrible cars, and why I believe you should too.