24 July 2007

Black Ink for Maserati After 17 Years


Today, Maserati announced that it has earned an operating profit for the second quarter of 2007 (before one-time items) of approximately €1 million. This is the first time that Maserati has turned a profit since it was acquired by Fiat in 1990. Last year in the same period, Maserati reported a loss of €7 million. The company also broke even for the first half of 2007, while it had a €26 million loss in the first half of 2006.

The company attributes its newfound financial success to the highly-regarded Quattroporte automatic, which boosted Quattroporte sales by almost 40% over the first five months of its availability. Previously, the Quattroporte's transmission was a rear-mounted Duo-Select semiautomatic transmission which was relatively unrefined (according to reviews) and wasn't happy loping around town. It might have been acceptable in a no-holds-barred performance vehicle such as a Ferrari, but not in a car that competes with other $100,000 luxury sedans.

After much criticism, Maserati re-engineered the floorpan of the Quattroporte and equipped it with a ZF-sourced six-speed automatic transmission mounted in the front of the car to create the Quattroporte Automatica. The new transmission basically addressed nearly all of the complaints that owners and reviewers had about the Duo-Select one, and proved to be a wise move for the Italian automaker.

Maserati expects further success for the rest of 2007; in fact, with the upcoming launch of the Granturismo four-seat premium coupe, Maserati expects to earn a profit for the full year and to sell 35% more vehicles than it did in 2006 (7,600 versus 5,600), and even more in 2008.

Germany's Road Sign Deforestation

Germans tend to feel more comfortable when they are given precise, unambiguous rules. To that end, their roads are absolutely covered in road signs - to the tune of over 20 million signs. There is an average of one road sign every 28 meters, or 36 signs per kilometer. Many German drivers now feel that their country's road sign proliferation is so bad that that the sheer quantity of them has become a safety hazard. In fact, 75% of all German drivers in a recent survey conducted by Germany's ADAC automobile club believed their country had too many road signs.

Now, the country is doing something about it. With the encouragement of the German Transport Ministry, local authorities in some towns have been cruising around while having frank discussions about the necessity of some signs, such as a "pedestrians only" sign on a walkway too narrow for even a bicycle, or a "toad crossing" sign at another location. The goal of the sign-reduction project is to get rid of as many as half of Germany's road sign population.

When a sign is identified as potentially unnecessary, it is covered by a plastic yellow hood that advises of the sign's condemnation. If nobody complains after a few weeks of the sign being covered, it is removed permanently. Some of the removed signs are sold for scrap, while others are kept in storage "in case they're needed later."

The small Dutch town of Drachten also suffered from an excess of road signs and traffic lights, so its leadership took the radical step of removing ALL signs and signals, and installing a children's playground in the middle of a road to encourage drivers to slow down. The result was that traffic moved more "safely," but no longer flowed as smoothly. The German town of Bohmte would like to attempt a similar experiment.

Though I would love to have the pleasure of driving a performance car on an unrestricted stretch of open Autobahn, driving through cities and towns in Germany would probably be less enjoyable. I'm all for reducing roadside clutter and driver distractions (in this case, external distractions), but without a navigation system, I'd imagine that it's very difficult to find one's way through a town with no signs.

22 July 2007

Seeing These Things On Cars Makes My Blood Boil


Dealer decals are the scorn of beautiful cars everywhere. Got a nice Cadillac? Let's chintz it up by sticking 'Jim Bob Cadillac' on the rear bumper just so everyone knows that you're a Jim Bob kind of guy. Want to spice up the rear end of your Camry? John Doe Toyota/Lexus is more than happy to oblige with not so discrete vinyl adhesive flair for your vehicle. Feeling that your brand new Dodge just doesn't have enough masculinity to get you through the day? Here's a set of ram horns and a big pentastar from your good friends at Randomberg Chrysler/Dodge. And the list goes on and on and on.

A few dealers don't do this. I don't know whether this is done because they're smart or because the vinyl decals cost too much, and quite frankly, I don't care. What they do instead is install the license plate holder of doom. You've seen those too- license plate frames emblazoned with 'Anytown Nissan' across the back, ensuring that everyone will know you're-

a)from out of town
b)probably easy pickings for car thieves
c)probably packing a lot of valuables in your trunk

While less obnoxious than the vinyl decal for the simple reason that you don't have to do much work to remove them, the license plate frame is still an offender in the bad taste wars.

So why the hell do dealerships do this? Ostensibly, it's to increase awareness of their dealership, especially in larger cities where they may be competing against their own company. But is that a valid reason to deface a vehicle? Especially since you've already spent a lot of money with them in the first place? It reminds me of vehicles that have incessant badging INSIDE the vehicle, a common trait among many cars from the 80s, where it was apparently very hard to remember what vehicle you were currently driving. 'Honey, let's go take a look at those new Buick Regals right there... oh wait, we're ALREADY driving a Buick Regal! Thank God this fake chrome Regal badge was on the glovebox!'

Probably the biggest sin in all of this is that it's done on the down low- the dealer does it without asking. You've got to specifically ask them NOT to mark their territory, and even then, they push back. It's quite amazing to see in action- 'You DON'T want our sticker on your otherwise new vehicle? Why not?!?!?!'. Well for one, I don't want to look like your dealership courtesy shuttle. The mixture of amazement, puzzlement and just under the surface seething is hard to quantify, but it's there.

The Nicest Dealership You'll Ever See

Are you actually surprised that it's a Lexus? Lexus Bellevue to be exact. I'm officially a little bit depressed that their customer waiting lounge(s) have far nicer furniture than anything in my home. Not to mention multiple flat screen televisions. Oh, and a garage that I didn't even have the capacity to dream about until today. Did I mention the escalators? Or the hotel lobby thing? Just amazing.

Original link from The Car Lounge, with pictures from Car Domain (lots more pictures at the Car Domain link):









Did I Say VW Was On A Death March? I Meant They're Almost At The Finish Line



From Motor Authority:

Volkswagen’s joint-venture with China’s Shanghai Auto will spawn a new car that will eventually go on sale in North America. The new model will mark the first time that VW’s Chinese partner will help develop a vehicle targeted at a global market, Reuters Reports.
So.

A brand that for the past 10 years has been dealing with quality issues has decided to outsource production of a vehicle to China.

Perhaps they saw a video of the Brilliance BS6 and decided they wanted such materials and craftmanship in their own vehicles.

On what level does this make sense? To save money? Perhaps. But doesn't this fly in the face of VW moving upmarket with their brand in terms of perception and price?

IM IN UR ONSTAR TRAXXORING UR MOVEMENTS!


I was bumbling around Digg.com yesterday and came upon THIS article. To quote:

Did you know that the FBI can listen in to any and all of your conversations through your cell phone even when you’re not actually speaking on the phone?
Yeah, it all sounds pretty tin-foil hattish to me too. But what is known is that current cell phone technology can be tracked via triangulation, on OR off. So, if this is true, what's to stop the FBI or any other law enforcement type group from tracking anyone who has an Onstar unit in their vehicle?

I doubt it would require activation- when you pay for Onstar, you're essentially paying GM to give you the information they are probably already gathering about your vehicle. Its whereabouts. The average speed you've been driving. Your top speed. How many panic stops you've made. If the above article referenced is correct, theoretically it could be used to listen in on conversations too.

The most interesting part about all of this is how ubiquitous Onstar has become for GM- the module is standard in the large majority of their vehicles, with future plans to put it in everything. And GM has always touted it as the 'do everything' device, to the detriment of other technologies that they've failed to implement (Bluetooth, navigation, etc.). So what does GM have to say about Onstar privacy?

Well, GM does have a whole page of legalese that deals with the technology-

http://www.onstar.com/us_english/jsp/privacy_policy.jsp

The first question in their FAQ deals with tracking:

Q: Does OnStar continuously monitor my car's location?
A: No, OnStar does not continuously or routinely monitor, update or otherwise track the location of OnStar-equipped cars. OnStar only knows the location of a car when a user initiates a request for service, there is an Air Bag Deployment, an Advanced Automatic Crash Notification occurs, your OnStar equipment calls OnStar with data updates or when required to locate a car by a valid court order in criminal procedures or under exigent circumstances. OnStar requires police involvement for Stolen Vehicle Location Assistance and missing person requests.
Another question deals with monitoring:

Q: If I'm not talking with an OnStar Advisor, or an Advisor and a third party conferenced in at my request, does OnStar monitor conversations in my car?
A: It is not possible for OnStar advisors to monitor car occupant conversations without notice to the occupants. When an advisor calls into your vehicle, a light flashes, there is a ring, and the radio mutes. Even if requested, it is not possible for OnStar to override this functionality. In addition, calls through the OnStar system are normally audible through the stereo speakers, and cars programmed with text display capabilities can see an indicator of a connection to OnStar on the driver's instrument panel. Moreover, OnStar's policy requires Advisors to announce their presence immediately upon establishing a call with the vehicle.
So it appears that all is fine and dandy, and that GM has covered their ample behinds on this issue. Right?

Well, maybe not really.

Earlier on we get these tidbits:

Should you choose to use Hands-Free Calling to dial 911 in an emergency situation rather than contacting OnStar, and your car contains certain OnStar equipment, the location of your car at the time the call was made may be provided to the public safety or dispatch personnel who answered your call.
and

OnStar only knows where your car is when a user initiates a request for service, there is an Air Bag Deployment, an Advanced Automatic Crash Notification occurs, your OnStar equipment calls OnStar with data updates or OnStar is required to locate the car by a valid court order in criminal procedures.
and finally

OnStar may use your information to:....(h) comply with legal requirements, valid court orders and exigent circumstances; (i) protect the rights, property, or safety of you or others;
All emphasis and bolding is my own. So it would seem that the idea of sharing this information and the accessibility of this information is still pretty nebulous right? So if the FBI/CIA/Insert Your Own Agency Here goes to GM with one of their 'listening lists', will GM provide the information to them? Looks like they would. It's not that GM CAN'T use the technology to do so- it's that they're telling you they won't. There's a very real difference there methinks.

For another view of Onstar, look at www.onstarprivacy.com . I originally thought it was a site FOR Onstar. How wrong I was. Instead, it points out some very obvious discrepancies in the privacy statements of GM.

Namely-

  • THIS LINK , taken from the NY Times, describing a 'wire tap' scenario for something like Onstar.
  • Insurance companies may require that you permit them to examine your data as a condition of insurance.
And that's the tip of the iceberg. Go check out that site, it's really quite enlightening.

This will probably be seen as a slam against Onstar- it isn't. It's more of a question as to why this technology has been adapted so quickly and with so little questioning by the public at large. How long before Onstar technology is used to control speeding? How long before GM starts to deny warranty claims because of 'improper use' gleaned from Onstar (if this hasn't happened already). And so on and so forth. Although they aren't what they used to be in terms of marketshare, GM is still the big boy on the block in North America, and the fact that their halo technology has gotten a free ride thus far as a 'life saver' and 'invaluable' is sort of disconcerting in light of these privacy issues don't you think?

21 July 2007

!Ouy Evas Ot Ereh Si Tlov Yvehc Eht



Look at it. Moving so majestically. And slowly. And in reverse. I can feel the quivering coming from the Middle East right now. Vive la future without oil!

...

Note to self- this was released by GM Blogs. Meaning it's probably powered by a Cobalt sourced Ecotec with a couple of Energizer battery covers to make people think big progress is being made.

20 July 2007

Driving in Manhattan Won't Be Free Much Longer

In 2003, London instituted a £8, or about $16, "congestion charge" on any cars that entered central London. The aim was to clear some of the traffic and clutter from the center of the city, encourage public transportation use, and reduce air pollution. To many, including London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, the plan was so successful that the city expanded the size of the zone in February to roughly double its size and encompass a larger portion of the city. Although at the time of the initial implementation, 40% of Londoners supported the surcharges, 60% of them did in 2006.

Mr. Livingstone touts many successes of the charges:
  • In 2002, the average vehicle traveling through the city moved at an average of 8.7 miles per hour; in 2003 it jumped to 10.5 miles per hour
  • There are 16.4% fewer vehicles entering the city since 2002
  • There is 16.4% less carbon dioxide emissions in the city than in 2002
  • Traffic accidents with injuries fell from 2,296 in 2002 to 1,629 in 2005
The tolls work like this: When you drive through the marked toll zone between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (or 6:30 p.m., depending on the zone), hundreds of cameras photograph your car's license plate. A computer matches your license plate number against a database of license plates that have paid the toll. Drivers have until midnight on the day they entered the toll zone to make payment (which can be done online, via text message, over the phone, or in convenience stores), or they face fines, which are sometimes very hefty. Residents who live within the toll zones receive a 90% discount. The system costs the city about $184 million per year to run, but generates $430 million in revenue (that's a 57% profit margin).

They are not without opposition, even in London. Small business owners are concerned that the charges dissuade potential customers from shopping at their stores if they are within the toll zone. Privacy advocates hate the idea of the government tracking every car's movements through the city.

Now, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg would like to implement a similar plan in Manhattan, below 86th street. Under Mr. Bloomberg's proposal, any car entering the area between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. would be charged $8. Forget for a moment that the city is asking the federal government for between $200 million and $500 million for this initiative. Also forget for a moment that 55% of New Yorkers already use public transportation to commute to work. And finally, forget the fact that recording vehiclular movements Big Brother style goes counter to the loss of privacy that most Americans will tolerate. Those are all major issues with this initiative, to be sure. But what about the fact that Manhattan is an island? I mean, until amphibious cars are mainstreateam, the only way to get a car into Manhattan is via bridge, tunnel, or ferry, and nearly every way into Manhattan requires payment of a toll. So wouldn't it be exponentially simpler to just add $8 onto tolls for vehicles entering Manhattan? The toll collection infrastructure - whether in the form of ferry tickets, E-ZPass, or human toll collectors - is already there.

The other thing that fundamentally bothers me about this idea as a car enthusiast is that, as if increasing traffic, increasing gas prices, and increasingly inconsiderate fellow drivers aren't already conspiring to remove most of the fun from the driving experience, New York is basically trying to eliminate automobiles, at least to the largest extent they are able. That just doesn't sit right with me.

I've only personally driven in Manhattan twice that I can recall; otherwise, every other time I have visited, I've either ridden the train or the ferry, so this concept doesn't directly affect me. However, the idea is catching on in other cities, and it's only a matter of time before a city near me - or you - tries to implement "congestion charges." Say goodbye to automotive freedom and hello to bureaucracy.

19 July 2007

2008 Cadillac CTS Pricing Released


Yesterday afternoon, a member at Cadillacforums.com posted official 2008 CTS pricing. The base price for a 2008 CTS with the non-DI engine and manual transmission is $32,245, and the model with the 304-horsepower direct injection V6 comes with a standard automatic transmission and costs $34,545, or $2,300 more. The base car's price represents a $1,575 (5.1%) increase over the 2007 2.8 liter's $30,670 price. However, comparing the 255-horsepower 3.6 liter prices, it's actually a $1,285 price reduction.

Don't get your hopes up, however. If you're a buyer, the news only gets worse from here. Options seem to be extremely expensive. I haven't analyzed the details of what is included in each package, but it's readily apparent that if you want to get ALL the good stuff, you should be prepared to spend a lot of money. A DI model with the premium luxury collection, 18" wheels, UltraView sunroof, etc. will top out at almost $50,000.

According to Cheers and Gears, the package contents are:

Luxury Collection (PDP) - $2600
Luxury Level One Package (Y40)
Seating Package (Y44)

Premium Luxury Collection (PDQ) - $8165
Luxury Level One Package (Y40)
Luxury Level Two Package (Y41)
Seating Package (Y44)
Audio system with navigation (UAV)
UltraView sunroof (C3U)
Wood Trim Package (B19)
Wood Trim Package (B20)
Universal Home Remote (UG1)

Performance Collection (PDR) - $3300
18" All-Season Tire Performance Package (Y42)
Seating Package (Y44)

Luxury Level One (Y40) - $1000
Theft-deterrent alarm system
AM/FM stereo with 6-disc in-dash CD changer and MP3 playback with Radio Data System (RDS) and Bose 8-speaker system
Rainsense wipers
Accent lighting
17" x 8" machined-faced wheels

Luxury Level Two (Y41) - $2025
Heated/ventilated front seats
Split-folding rear seat
Power rake wheel and telescopic steering column
Universal Home Remote
EZ Key passive entry system
Ultrasonic Rear Parking Assist

While the base prices are similar, or even better, the availability of additional options will push the price of a CTS with all the option boxes checked to more than $10,000 over the price of a loaded 2007 model. Apparently GM really does take the idea of moving the CTS into BMW 5-series territory seriously, because top of the line CTSs will be within spitting distance of 535i sedans (which start at $49,400 without leather interiors).

I'm curious to see how the market reacts to this pricing. On one hand, the base price is attractive and the car is a clear improvement over the outgoing model. On the other hand, pricing a new model too high at launch can kill its chance for later success; just ask the Chrysler Pacifica.

Click the image below for a graphic with the full pricing details.

18 July 2007

Ford sales up 122 percent...


...in Russia.

For all the tears shed, hands wrung, and red ink spilled about Ford's problems in the US market for the past year or two (namely a $12.6 billion-with-a-B loss in 2006 and falling sales and market share), there is at least one part of the world where Ford can literally do almost no wrong: Russia.

Take almost everything that is wrong with Ford in its home market - a truck-heavy lineup, a marginally competitive small car, and unrealistic MSRPs (hence the perpetual $7,000 rebate on Lincoln Town Cars), and Ford does not have any of those issues in Russia. In fact, year to date Ford sales are up in Russia by 122% through June 30, while the overall market was up 70% in 2006.

In Europe, expensive gasoline and a more pragmatic approach to transportation means that few if any non-industrial buyers purchase pickup trucks or full-size SUVs. Although the US market is trending away from these vehicles, they are still very much a part of Ford's US lineup (as well as GM's and Chrysler's). However, as US buyers' tastes shift away from large vehicles, Ford's product plans have not yet caught up to consumer tastes. In Europe, and Russia in particular, the product mix pretty much already matches what buyers want, and are likely to want in coming years. Throw a growing economy flush with oil revenue (wages up 28% in April 2007 versus April 2006) into the mix, and the result is stratospheric sales gains.

Instead of talking about what Ford does wrong in the US, let's look at what they did right in Russia. Part of Ford's success is probably luck, and part can be attributed to good management.

Ford laid the foundation for its success in Russia by becoming the first foreign-owned automotive company to build a production line in Russia, in St. Petersburg, so the company enjoyed a first mover advantage. St. Petersburg has become a "Russian Detroit," as Nissan and Toyota later announced plans to build vehicles there, and other facets of a nascent automotive industry sprang up in the area. Ford currently has capacity to produce 72,000 Focus compacts at its St. Petersburg facility, but just announced plans on July 10 to spend $100 million to expand the plant to produce an additional 28,000 Focuses (100,000 total) plus 25,000 Mondeo midsize cars.

As far as having the proper product mix for the local market, Ford's lineup in Russia is anchored by the Focus. Yes, the Russians get the "good" Focus (on the well-regarded C1 platform, which also underpins the Mazda3, Volvo S40, and others). The Focus starts at just $12,000 and is well within reach of the Russian middle class, particularly with readily available financing. The Focus is so popular in Russia that at its launch, customers had to endure six month waiting lists to buy one. There are still waiting lists, but they're now at three or four months. It's the best selling import brand vehicle in Russia, beating out strong competitors such as Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi.

If Ford only Ford was able to emulate its success in Russia in the US, we might be having very different conversations about Ford's future today. Unfortunately, though the Russian Ford sales are way up, they also represent only a small portion of Ford's global sales (115,985 units out of 6.6 million) so aren't really helping the bottom line at this point. However, analysts believe that in the next few years, Russia could become the largest car market in Europe, and Ford appears to be sitting in a great position to capitalize on that.

The New Porsche Panamera Reminds Me Of Arnold Schwarzenegger For Some Odd Reason





Resemblance to a previous generation Lexus GS? Check.
Horrifically ricey rear wing? Check.
Weird growth on the ass end? Triple check.

If anyone other than Porsche was looking to release this vehicle, it would get savaged. But since it's Porsche, the German fetishists are having a field day about how great this looks. Give me a break.

Rolls-Royce Breathes A Sigh Of Relief- Chrysler Imperial Shelved


Apparently not happy with pillaging most Bentley styling cues with their Chrysler 300C sedan, a few years ago Chrysler decided to wade into deeper, more staid and upright waters- pillaging styling cues from Rolls-Royce. Perhaps emboldened by their then German taskmasters, who wanted to steal Bentley/Audi/VW thunder, they came out with the monstrosity pictured above, the Imperial.

What was the Imperial? A further stretched version of the 300C, with suicide rear doors, and a look that suggested it was straining to release a bowel movement. Probably not a good look for a vehicle destined to cost upwards of $50k US I think.

Seems like the current crop of Chrysler execs took a dose of Metamucil and came to the same conclusion, accord to the Toronto Star-

Chrysler confirmed yesterday that it has decided not to proceed with production of the bulky luxury car at the Brampton assembly plant.

Ed Saenz, manager of corporate communications for DaimlerChrysler Canada, attributed the demise of the project to escalating gasoline prices and more government regulations on fuel economy, which would cut into the vehicle’s popularity.
Read 'escalating gasoline prices' as 'we focus grouped this thing and people turned to stone', and 'government regulations on fuel economy' as 'we would need 2 Hemi engines to move this behemoth around', and you'd probably get a better idea of what Mr. Saenz was trying to say.

Even When GM Does Something Right, They Still Do It Wrong


Since everyone, their mom, and their 2nd cousin has apparently seen Transformers in the first two weeks of its release, I pose this question- which of the Transformers made the biggest splash in visual appeal and, to paraphrase C&D- 'gotta have it' factor?

No, not Optimus Prime, with his crappy flames.
No, not the supremely idiotic looking Megatron.
No, not the bird-like Starscream.

The correct answer is Bumblebee.

This was to be a crowning moment for GM- they had this movie all to themselves. One of the bad guys was a freaking Ford Mustang for God's sake! For one of the most pivotal characters in the movie, GM decided to throw their best at the wall, hoping it would stick- Bumblebee would be a Camaro.

At first, an old Camaro. But after spotting a new Camaro on the street, well, he would morph into a new Camaro.

There is something important in that last sentence. 'On the street'- in the movie, the new Camaro is spotted on the street. Silly me, I took that to mean that the new Camaro was actually, you know, OUT already. As did probably every 14-45 year old male in the audience of the movie who wasn't attached at the hip to an online news source. Unfortunately for them, the new Camaro ISN'T available yet. On the street. Or in a dealership. Or anywhere for that matter really. Well, maybe an autoshow. But you're definitely not allowed to sit in it.

And another idiotic decision on the part of GM comes to light. They blew their load in the biggest movie of the summer on a vehicle that isn't available until 2009. All that goodwill and publicity... for nada. Maybe another Transformers movie comes out in 2009 or 2010- but do they want to bank on that? And really, first impressions play a huge role- the Camaro might just well be old news by 2009.

So what other car should have been in its place? My vote goes to the Solstice- coincidentally used for Jazz in the movie. Or even the Corvette, if they wanted to play the 'old car turning into a new car' trick.

But the Camaro? A 2009 model?

Nope.

VW Continues Their Death March


According to VWVortex, the Fahrvergnügen people are getting all bright eyed and bushy tailed with a set of new models due to come out next year.

What's coming out?

  • Jetta TDI Wagon
  • Tiguan CUV
  • VW Minivan
  • Passat Coupe
  • Next gen Touareg
See a problem here?

In Canada and the US, VW has made a committed effort towards becoming Audi-lite. And it's just not working. At all. Their core brands, the Jetta and the Rabbit, are mired in sales slumps versus their respective segment leaders (Civic, et al), almost totally because they are priced WAY too high. The Passat has the same issues when compared against the midsize segment competition which it matches up with. The problem is that the buying public just ain't buying the idea of VW as the premium brand. It's just not happening.

It's interesting to note that in Canada, sales have been brisk for VW. But for what models? The CITY Golf and the CITY Jetta. What are those you ask? Last generation versions of the respective nameplates. Sold for 15k, bare bones, weak engines, and nothing much in terms of frosting. Why did VW have to resort to this? Because they were getting their lunch eaten in the small car market by the more reasonably priced competition, and had no other choice.

So the solution going forward would have seemed to be simple- go back to the bread and butter of the brand. VW was never about 'premium'. It was about solid German engineering at cheap prices. Pretty simple really. A Polo derivative should have come over to North America to fill in the gap in the product line created by escalating Jetta and Rabbit prices (did you know that a Jetta can approach 40k CDN?), along with a number of offshoots (think coupe, convertible, hatchback, etc.) all available with diesel engines if wanted.

Instead we get more bloat for the Passat lineup, at what will probably be a price premium, a CUV that will no doubt be more expensive and offer less value than the Americans, the Japanese and the Koreans, a rebadged Chrysler minivan, and an SUV that probably would have been better off as an Audi/Porsche only model. The only bright light is the Jetta TDI Wagon offshoot- but will that be enough to stop the floundering?

Odds are... no.

OK, but if they go any higher, THEN we'll cut back...


A Reuters/Zogby poll released today concluded that 40% of Americans would curb their driving habits if gas reached $3.50 per gallon. Somehow, I do not believe this. It's not that I am disputing the poll or its methodology; I dispute that Americans know what they are talking about with gas prices and how they will behave.

Gas prices in late May were already at an average of $3.23 per gallon nationwide. Assuming 22.5 miles per gallon combined economy and 15,000 miles driven per year, the annual cost difference between $3.23 and $3.50 per gallon is $180.09. That means a monthly difference of $15 or a weekly difference of $3.46.

Believe me, I complain about high gas prices as much as the next guy. We own two V6-powered vehicles (though one is a 5000-pound midsize body on frame SUV) and our "fleet average" is pretty close to 20 or 21 miles per gallon (the car a little above that, and it's driven more; the SUV a little below that, and it's driven less). I just don't find it terribly credible for people to say that they will cut back on their driving if gas goes up another 27 cents per gallon from its late-May highs. Instead, I think that the steady climb of gas prices, particularly since early 2005, has almost conditioned the American public to accept them. I actually caught myself calling $2.74 per gallon "cheap" last weekend (and it was, relative to the prevailing $2.90 per gallon everywhere else near me). Meanwhile, US petroleum consumption - in spite of high prices - is actually increasing year over year. The fact is, most people have already cut out extraneous travel from their driving and are combining trips and using

I won't talk much about advocating a gas tax at this time, but ironically, the one period when US petroleum consumption slowed or even declined in the past few years was immediately following Hurricane Katrina, when gas prices suddenly jumped $0.50 or more per gallon. It was a shock to consumers, rather than the Chinese water torture of steadily increasing prices has been for the past two years. Something sudden - like a tax - would likely have the same result.

The overall poll results about how gas prices would affect consumer behavior are:
  • 40% would curb their driving habits at $3.50 per gallon
  • 19% would curb their driving habits at $4.00 per gallon
  • 9% would curb their driving habits at $4.50 per gallon
  • 7% would curb their driving habits at $5.00 per gallon
  • 19% could not curb their driving habits regardless of price
The total above is 94%. Therefore, the implication is that in spite of gas prices being near all-time records in inflation-adjusted dollars, only 6% of drivers have curbed their driving habits.

A spokesperson for AAA, Geoff Sundstrom, probably said it best when he said, "It's so hard to read what consumer behavior is going to be at higher price pionts - be that $3.50 per gallon or $4.00 per gallon - because we're all in uncharted territory."

However, given past history of the way Americans have complained, but basically shrugged off high gas prices, I expect more of the same as prices continue to rise in the coming years.

17 July 2007

Child Seat Heads-Up and Plea


In the past month, I've had three conversations with parents or grandparents of young children (or, in one case, future parents of a young child) who spoke of putting their child in an infant carrier in the front seat of their vehicle. After having these conversations, I was almost dumbfounded, because I had no clue that there were still parents in 2007 that didn't put their children in the back seat as all of the safety experts advised. I figured that if I couldn't properly convince those people to use the back seat only for children, maybe I could save some other lives instead of their childrens'/grandchildrens'.

The belief that it's "OK" or "not a big deal" to have a very young child in the front seat of a car is, in my opinion, foolish. The reason cars and trucks have frontal airbags is because most collisions are frontal; simple physics then tells us that the further away from the impact a passenger is, the less likely it is that they would be injured or killed. Just think about that one - the back seat in almost any car is probably four or five feet farther from the firewall than the front seat. According to safekids.org, crash statistics bear this common sense out; one study showed that children are 37% more likely to be killed if seated in the front seat rather than the rear seat. As a father, I am fully in favor of giving my child a 37% better chance of surviving a crash, as should any responsible parent.

Here's another chilling statistic, from the NHTSA: "Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for the age group 3 to 14 years old (based on 2003 figures, which are the latest mortality data currently available from the National Center for Health Statistics)." The same report also states, "Research on the effectiveness of child safety seats has found them to reduce fatal injury by 71 percent for infants (less than 1 year old) and by 54 percent for toddlers (1-4 years old) in passenger cars." So doesn't it stand to reason that it's important to properly restrain your young child?

Although I have personally buckled up since childhood, and have never driven a car without wearing one, I consider myself far from extreme in my child safety views. In fact, I believe that laws such as Pennsylvania's that require a child of up to seven years old to be in a booster seat to be a little over-the-top, considering there is no weight exemption. If you have a Baby Huey-sized seven year old who weighs 110 pounds, it's ridiculous to have him in a booster seat. I do support mandatory seatbelt laws, particularly for children 17 and under, however.

Here are some excuses I've heard for putting children in the front seat that carry ZERO weight with me, as well as my response to these statements.

"When I was raising my kids 30 years ago, we didn't even have cars seats, and they turned out fine!"
Yes, but there are plenty of kids from our generation who didn't turn out fine, because they were killed or maimed in traffic accidents. The overall fatality rate has basically been cut by more than half since 1975, from 3.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles of travel, to 1.47 in 2005 (link to recent data). So obviously we're doing something better with regard to occupant protection today. Is it possible we know more now than we did then?

"It's much easier to take care of an infant in the front seat, rather than unsafely reaching to the back seat while driving."
While it is unsafe to reach to the back seat to take care of a baby, having a mirror on the seat so that you can see the baby without turning your head makes this situation safer (as long as the mirror is secured properly). I don't think holding a baby bottle while driving is any safer than reaching to the back seat (we prefer to have a single child seat on the right side of the car so the reach is easier). It's also prudent to just pull over for a minute to take care of the baby.

"If it's going to be your time to be killed in a car accident, there's nothing you can do to change that. You can't improve your odds."
Yes, you CAN improve your odds. If you KNEW for sure that you were going to be in a traffic accident tomorrow, and there was nothing you could do to stop it, would you wear a seatbelt at least for tomorrow? Of course you would. That's called improving your odds. If you wouldn't, (and I say this with all due respect), you're an imbecile. I believe very strongly in God, but I don't plan on tempting fate by leaving myself or anyone in my family unprotected in the car. I will also buy every airbag possible in any new vehicle I purchase.

"If you only have a two seat car, it's legal to have the baby in the front passenger seat in Pennsylvania."
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe. I've already mentioned one area where Pennsylvania went overboard with the child restraint laws (no weight limit on the boosters); they have also ignored serious potential safety issues allowing small children in the front seat and allowing children to be unrestrained in a vehicle that has all of the other seating positions are occupied by restrained passengers. So the Baby Huey seven year old needs a booster seat, unless his parents own a five-passenger car and he's the sixth passenger, in which case he can sit on his brother's lap. If someone owns only a two-seat car or pickup, and there is no other way to transport a child, it's still a bad idea, but at least be certain that the passenger airbag is deactivated for all small children, and it's absolutely essential to do so with rear-facing seats.

I apologize for the preachy article, but please, think carefully about the way you are protecting your children in the car. It's your job as a parent to make smart decisions for them.

Additional resources:
Child Seat FAQ: http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=6551&folder_id=170

Child car seat safety at Edmunds:
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/45195/article.html

16 July 2007

Diesel Invasion


In the next few years, we'll see more diesels offered in the US than probably at any time in history. Why? Higher corporate fuel economy standards are likely in coming years, and even the US petroleum industry said in a draft report today that world oil supplies from conventional sources are unlikely to keep up with demand over the next 25 years. The problem is a combination of rapidly increasing petroleum consumption in the developing world and slowing or declining oil production worldwide.

Diesels are one piece of the solution to the problem of reducing petroleum consumption. Others include gas-electric hybrids, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), electric vehicles, and alternate fuels such as ethanol or hydrogen. All things being equal, a diesel generally gets about 30% better fuel economy than a gasoline engine. Modern diesels are almost always paired with a turbocharger, which serves to make diesels have none of the sluggishness that their ancestors did. In fact, diesel engines usually have very robust low-end torque characteristics, which make them ideal for stop-and-go urban driving, although this comes at the expense of higher-RPM power.

One key advantage of diesel engines, other than the fuel economy and torque benefits previously described, is that the infrastructure is already in place in large part because auto manufacturers have been selling diesel-powered pickup trucks for years, not to mention all of the heavy- and medium-duty diesel trucks on the road. Unlike alternate fuels such as hydrogen and E85, which can be found in almost no and very few gas stations, respectively, diesel is available at 42% of the 169,000 service stations nationwide; E85 is available at less than 1% of them.

GM famously/infamously scared an entire generation of consumers away from diesel engines in the 1980s by underdeveloped, unreliable, noisy diesel engines that were converted from gasoline engines. While Europeans have had an auto fleet consisting of many diesels for the past several years, Americans have shied away from them, thanks in large part to the GM diesel issues of the 1980s and to the fact that gasoline was relatively inexpensive.

This is all changing, however. In the past few years, we have seen some interesting developments on the diesel front; Jeep offered a diesel Liberty and now is offering a sophisticated 3.0 liter diesel Grand Cherokee with an engine sourced from Mercedes-Benz. The real fun, however, comes in 2010.

Word on the street is that the reason Honda dropped the Accord Hybrid model after the 2007 model year (besides slow sales) is that a diesel model is on its way. I've heard a 52 mile per gallon figure cited for this car; if this is true, I'll be very impressed. That's more than double the mileage I get from my 2004 Accord V6, and I'm actually more or less satisfied with its mileage. A diesel will probably make it into the Honda Ridgeline pickup and Odyssey minivan as an optional engine choice, plus the Acura MDX crossover and likely some other models.

Honda is an engineering company first and foremost, and they are the only auto manufacturer so far that has not had to resort to urea injection to convert nitrous oxide into harmless nitrogen and water (this is a solution that Mercedes, BMW, VW, Audi, and GM, among others, have undertaken). The problem with urea injection is that there is as tank of it under the hood, and when the supply is exhausted, the exhaust is no longer treated; not a very elegant solution. Instead, Honda has devised a special catalytic converter for its diesel that requires no chemical additives (so is maintenance-free) and the catalysts convert some of the the NOx to ammonia in its first layer, and then a now-ammonia-rich second layer converts the remaining exhaust to harmless nitrogen and water. It reminds me very much of Honda's ability to meet 1975 Clean Air Act standards using its new CVCC engine rather without a catalytic converter.

GM is also embracing diesels in a big way in the coming years. GM Vice Chairman of Global Product Development, Bob Lutz, recently on a video posted on the corporate FastLane blog that in the coming years, GM would introduce a V6 diesel engine for crossovers, passenger cars, and light duty trucks and an all-aluminum 4.5 liter V8 diesel engine for light duty sport utilities, etc. Word is that the Euro-centric Saturn lineup will be among the first passenger car applications of GM's US diesel engines, and the V8 diesel will likely make it into half ton trucks and full-size SUVs (GM has said that anywhere a small block V8 fits, the new diesel will fit). In the same video, Mr. Lutz sought to downplay expectations of the diesel engine as a panacea for US fuel economy concerns, because he said the price premium to build an emissions-compliant diesel is about $4,500 on top of a comparable gas engine, and that as gas engines become more sophisticated (thanks to direct injection and homogeneous stratified charge) and diesels are choked by emission controls, he expected the 30% economy improvement to be reduced to near zero. Basically, he seems to implicitly support Ford's approach of applying diesel-like technology to gasoline engines, while going kicking and screaming into diesels only because they think that the market will demand them.

Apparently at the same time Bob Lutz was recording the above-mentioned video (the first segment was posted June 29), GM was in negotiations to buy a stake in its partner for the upcoming Cadillac CTS's diesel engine in Europe, VM Motori of Italy. Yesterday (July 16), GM announced that it had bought 50% of VM Motori. The press release contained none of the skepticism that Bob Lutz showed in the video clip. The move to buy a large stake in VM Motori sounds like a prudent move if GM wishes to ensure a steady supply of powerful, efficient diesel engines in the next few years.

Other potential future diesel applications include new diesels for the Toyota Tundra and Nissan Titan full size pickup trucks, and a diesel version of the next-generation Nissan Maxima sedan.

It's good to see some alternatives in the pipeline for consumers who wish to improve their fuel economy. It's a good time to love oil burners.

10 July 2007

Chrysler Headlights And Signal Lights Are Like Matter And Anti-Matter

It's been something that has bugged me for years, and I've never been given a good answer for it.

Have you ever noticed that EVERY Chrysler vehicle shuts off a headlight when a signal light is flashing? Picture it in your head- the Caravan above is driving around with its headlights on, and comes to a stop sign and wants to turn right. The driver signals the right turn, and the right headlamp goes off while the signal light flashes. Once the signal light shuts off, the headlight goes back on to normal. This happens with daytime running lights too. And it's not limited to vehicles that have both lights in one housing- it doesn't matter, and it happens to every single Chrysler vehicle- Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, you name it.

So, why does it do this?

Some have postulated that it has to do with minimum distances for lights in the law- but that doesn't hold weight, because lots of other cars have similar setups to Chrysler vehicles, and they don't exhibit the same behaviour.

Anyone?

The Emperor's New Clothes


Bear with me for a moment, and take a step into your childhood with this excerpt penned by Hans Christian Andersen:
All the people standing by and at the windows cheered and cried, "Oh, how splendid are the Emperor's new clothes. What a magnificent train! How well the clothes fit!" No one dared to admit that he couldn't see anything, for who would want it to be known that he was either stupid or unfit for his post?

None of the Emperor's clothes had ever met with such success.

But among the crowds a little child suddenly gasped out, "But he hasn't got anything on." And the people began to whisper to one another what the child had said. "He hasn't got anything on." "There's a little child saying he hasn't got anything on." Till everyone was saying, "But he hasn't got anything on." The Emperor himself had the uncomfortable feeling that what they were whispering was only too true. "But I will have to go through with the procession," he said to himself.

So he drew himself up and walked boldly on holding his head higher than before, and the courtiers held on to the train that wasn't there at all.
Keeping the above story in mind, I need to get something off my chest.

I don't buy into the hype about the Ford Flex.


It pains me to make that statement, because I really, really want to see Ford pull out of its tailspin and sell some awesome products that resonate with the US buying public. The Fusion has done pretty well in its early life, and the Edge appears to be pleasing its early customers, in spite of a need to diet and some lackluster magazine reviews.

Now Ford wants us to believe that the Flex will be the family hauler for the 21st century, the one that every father and mother has dreamed about as they retch at the thought of commuting in a traditional minivan, and all of the perceived social stigma that accompanies a minivan purchase.

I hope I'm wrong about this, but I think it looks a little too different from the norm. GM's new full-size crossovers (Enclave, Acadia, and Outlook) have similar dimensions to the Flex outside and inside (except height, where the GM vehicles are about five inches taller, apparently mostly in the ride height). The difference is, GM is trying to make their large crossovers look more or less like traditional SUVs, while Ford is trying to make theirs look different. The GM triplets hide some of their length by having a curved, arching roofline, while the Flex has one as flat as Kansas, and you can see every inch of the vehicle's length when viewing the profile. In fact, the orange body and white roof in the press photos make it look even lower and longer than it probably is. People who seem to like the Flex's style compare it to a Range Rover, which has famously squared off edges and a recognizable shape, but the profile and white roof remind many others (me among them) of a double-sized Mini Cooper. The Flex has an innovative interior and lots of space, but I can't get past the idea that it looks a little too much unlike anything else in its class. To me, it just seems too long and low, and I'm just not sure if minivan intenders (or minivan-phobes) are interested in something so different.

Ford has bet big before and hit grand slams (1986 Taurus/Sable, for example), so it's entirely possible they're right on the Flex as well. I'm not going to humor the emperor and say that it's anything but a boxy-shaped crossover, and not the second coming of the minivan. It's just not a great looking vehicle to me, and I'd be dishonest to say otherwise.

9 July 2007

Transformers Sucked



Well, it broke all records for the week, racking up $152.6 million for the week, and $67.6 million for the weekend. It even managed to get a somewhat decent Tomatometer review over at Rotten Tomatoes, a feat I find hard to believe in retrospect, considering a)it's a Michael Bay movie and b)the movie really sucked.

Why did it suck? Well, first of all, Michael Bay needs to be strung up by his testicles on a clothesline for coming up with such shitty character models for all of the Transformers. No, I'm not some sort of old geek who wanted everything to look like the cartoon I grew up with when I was a kid. I just wanted the freaking machines to be recognizable. Apart from Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, exactly which of them was memorable? And not only that, but Bumblebee was recognizable solely because he was all yellow. The rest of the Transformers looked to be a dully grey, with healthy dollops of black, and a few touches of colour here and there. Every action sequence looked like a car accident, and not in a good way. The Transformers fanboys bitching about everything not looking like the cartoon are right- but not for the reasons they think- the cartoon worked because when you saw Optimus Prime, you KNEW it was him. When you saw Starscream or Megatron, you KNEW it was them. In the movie? They looked like big Mech Assault action pieces. Not cool.

The second reason why the movie sucked is because it was essentially the American remake of Godzilla, but with better special effects. I understand there needs to be a 'human' backstory, but the reason why there ARE Transformers fanboys in the first place is because all of them had some sort of personality. In the movie? Well, Jazz certainly tried his best to be Jar Jar Binks. And um, yeah. That was about it. Optimus Prime was spot on, but Bay managed to muff up the easiest characters in the entire movie- Megatron and Starscream- instead we got a couple of throwaway lines, and that was that.

The third reason why it sucked is that this was basically an alien invasion movie, but with some big robots. No adherence to backstory, no reason other than some convoluted 'All Spark' BS as to why everything was happening. If all the Transformers were lizards, it could have been the same thing.

The movie does get an enthusiastic 2 thumbs up for Megan Fox however.

Turning to the cars- yes, GM played a huge role here. Yes, the Camaro looked pretty boss. Will this do anything at all to increase sales? Probably not. Not unless they actually do start transforming.

Mags Ebert signing off.

This Nissan Sunny Picture Predicted The Future Of The Altima


In news that may only interest me....

Carscoop says:

Nissan’s best selling 2007 US-model, the Altima is being recalled due to a problem with the air-filter that could result to a fire in the engine bay. More specifically, the recall affects 140.852 cars equipped with the 2.5-liter 4-cylinder engine.

How fantastic!

You know why?

They already HAD a massive recall on the last generation 2.5 liter 4 cylinder engine. Remember, the one that fixed the manifolds that had a propensity for blowing up? I actually had one of those manifold eating engines- a 2005 if I remember right... but luckily it was before the recall- they did fix it under warranty, but they also were quite the pricks about it. And now this.

See, the Toyota recall of the Tundra engine was crappy, but at least it was an all new design, and it seemed to be an outsourced part that caused it. This on the other hand, is another problem on an engine that has been out in one form or another in the Altima for close to SIX years now.

Hey Nissan- pull your heads out of your asses.

Halfway To Zero


The first half of 2007 is behind us, and after some crunching of sales numbers, Automotive News reported today that the market share of the Big Three domestic manufacturers (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) has dipped to 50.2% of the US vehicle market in June, thanks in large part to GM's meltdown. Meanwhile, sales of Japanese branded vehicles in the US rose to 37.5%. Since the Domestics' share was 56.0% in June 2006 and the Japanese brands' share was 32.5% in June 2006, this means that almost one for one, every point of market share that Detroit gave up was snapped up by a Japanese brand. European and Korean brands took up the remaining 0.8 percentage points of market share.

What does this mean? Well, unlike an era a generation or two ago, when GM alone held more than 50% of the US auto market, three US-based companies together are likely to not be able to hold onto that share even together. GM has already said that they will not sit idly by while Ford, Chrysler, and even Toyota outspend them on incentives, so expect possibly a slight bump in July in domestic sales, but the long term writing has been on the wall for a while.

Not only has the US auto market become more fragmented - with more models, more brands, and even more countries of origin than ever before - but the domestic brands falling asleep at the wheel for a decade or two in the 1970s and 1980s certainly has harmed their current situation. For decades, their import competition steadily chugged along, improving their products in terms of comfort and reliability with each generation, convincing one buyer after another to switch brands, Detroit didn't do much about it. Now that this ship has left the harbor, and foreign competition has raised expectations and created a generation or two of satisfied customers, Detroit needs to come up with products and marketing that will convince satisfied import owners - or at least current domestic owners thinking of switching to the import side, that their products are worth buying. To do that, they'll need not only superior products, but substantially superior products. They need to look better (and in some cases, the domestic models actually do look better than their import competition), but also have better reliability, better fuel economy, a nicer interior, and be priced competitively. It's a tough hill to climb, and it pains me to say it, but I don't think we'll see Detroit at 50% market share again, ever.

By the way, the title of this post is not intended to imply that Detroit is on its way to zero market share (although the trend line does move in that direction). At some point, it will level off, but who knows when that will happen? The glass is definitely half empty at this point.

GM Two-Mode Hybrid To Cost Arm, Leg, Plus Body Part To Be Named Later





General Motors might absorb some costs of a Two Mode hybrid transmission in its
full-sized trucks to make the technology affordable to consumers, product chief
Bob Lutz says.The automaker plans to have at least three hybrid transmissions
and offer as many as a dozen hybrid models in the next few years. The Two Mode
system, which has two electric motors that assist the engine, would be the
premium system, Lutz said. The cost of that system is more than $10,000, sources
close to the program say.

That's not good.


Not good at all.


Note that it says AT LEAST $10k. Are you prepared to pay AT LEAST $35k US for an Aura? Or AT LEAST $32k US for a Malibu? What about smaller vehicles? If anything, this news means that GM is going to be stuck using the shitty BAS system for their low end vehicles for quite a while- at least until the economies of scale let them bring down the cost of their Two Mode system. The thought of GM subsidizing this system is ludicrous- using cash to subsidize the Two Mode would be suicide, especially since they're low on cash anyways, and much of their lineup is still in dire need of updates and revisions.


If you look at the Prius, it had 'premium' pricing for close to ten years before Toyota finally had the production capacity to make enough of them to drop the price. Does GM have 10 years? Or do they believe that using the Two Mode strictly in their $50k+ vehicles is a good strategy to persuade the general public that they are a green company? The whole thing is quickly becoming a joke- waiting for the vaporware that is the Volt, waiting for the Two Mode to become affordable, betting the farm on E85. And while they're touting upcoming technology, they continue to sell compact cars that are well behind everyone else in fuel economy, and utilize second rate 'hybrid' technology and trying to pass it off as filet mignon.


But it's all a conspiracy right Bob?


So to sum up- the Two Mode was supposed to be the silver bullet against the werewolf that is Toyota. And now it turns out that the werewolf can only be killed with silver bullets coated with diamonds. At a cost of more than $10,000 for the system, only the supremely stupid will bother with this system in anything less than a Cadillac- and that's not going to be enough for GM.

8 July 2007

Nitpicking Is Fun

I like the way the new Enclave looks, especially since it looks far better than the vehicle it ostensibly replaces, the Rendezvous. The other day, I saw an Enclave in the 'wild' for the first time, and something didn't look right. I tried to figure it out while I sat there looking at it in traffic, and it didn't click. And then I came home and started looking at pictures, and I figured it out-

Concept Enclave

2008 Enclave

Can you spot the difference?

First of all, GM needs to be commended for bringing this thing out so close to actual concept form.

But here's the nitpick.

Look at the C-pillar. The pillar right behind the rear door. On the concept, it flows right into the glass, and it has some brightwork design on it. On the actual model, they swept the pillar back some more, added in the triangle window portion right ahead of it, and the pillar now lacks the brightwork. It's not as noticeable on the dark grey example above, but in the colour that I saw it in (white), the pillar really stood out, and not in a good way- it looked almost tacked on.

Why did GM make such a small change that to me make a big difference in the way the back end of the vehicle looks? I have no idea. I just know that it looks different, and not necessarily better.

And so ends another session of nitpicking.

6 July 2007

Silly Me


Pulled up to a stoplight today behind the styling monstrosity you see above, the Toyota Camry Solara. Same colour too. Thing is, I wasn't paying attention, and slowly crept up really close behind the guy. We were on an incline at the light, so I worried briefly for a moment that the guy might be driving a stick, and if he wasn't careful, he might hit me on his takeoff. And then I woke up and realized I was behind a Camry Solara.

Silly me.

4 July 2007

The Massacre


Straight from the mouth of the horse.

GM dealers in the United States delivered 326,300 vehicles in June, down 24 percent, compared with year-ago monthly sales. The decline was partly attributed to a planned reduction of an additional 13,487 daily rental sale vehicles in the month. GM now has taken more than 92,000 daily rental vehicles out of the sales totals in 2007.
First things first- the daily rental bullshit is just that- bullshit. They were down 13,487 in daily rental sales for the month of June, but down 87,173 sales overall, so even if you take 13k sales out of that 87k figure, they're still in deep doo doo.

No Bobby and Ricky, June was one hell of a disaster month for the General.

Some of the brand highlights:

  • Buick down a solid 33% for the month, and down 28% for the year.
  • Chevy down 26.2% for the month, which accounts for a loss of about 54,000 vehicle sales for ONE MONTH for the 'volume' GM brand.
  • The Cadillac revival down over 30% for the month.
  • Saturn pulling in a 12% loss for the month, despite an almost complete vehicle lineup overhaul.

The picture gets even more depressing when you look at certain models.

For example:

  • Silverado 1/2 ton pickups were down 26% for the month, and are now down 2% for the year... and remember, this is an all new model. Their full-size brethren also suffered a 26% setback for the month.
  • The Sierra didn't do any better, down 29% of the month, and now down for the year to date as well.
  • The Aura is still selling under 5,000 units per month, putting it solidly in the 60,000 units per year category- all for a vehicle which has been pimped beyond belief to the masses... and with no buyer response.
  • The Equinox was down 50% for the month, losing 5,000 sales.
  • The G6 was down 38%, losing 7,000 sales.
  • The Cobalt was down 38%, with almost 10,000 fewer sales.
  • The Malibu was down 51%.
  • Even the once hot Solstice has fallen behind by 20% year to date versus last year.
Notice a trend here? All the volume sellers aren't doing volume!

About the only bright spots in the lineup this month were the Lambda triplets... and yet another further increase in Impala sales, which can only portend the end of the world. The biggest problem above and beyond the poor sales is this- when you take THIS ARTICLE into account, you realize that even these deflated sales numbers can be deflated further in terms of 'John Doe and his family' sales. Crazy.

Perhaps the truth is dawning on GM- the fix won't be quick. And when it arrives, the company may be long, long, long, long gone. But what do Lutz and Wagoner do? They continue to act like they're the big hosses in the barn... it's only a matter of time boys, only a matter of time.

Honda: Looking Out For The New Grads Pulling In $100k Per Year


Most car companies have new grad programs. They usually are something along the lines of 'graduate and you receive X amount of dollars off your new car purchase'. GM goes and makes 2 payments for you. The one thing they all have in common however, is that they usually exclude expensive models, and concentrate on entry models in a brand lineup.

But no, not Honda.

Honda doesn't offer the Fit to new graduates.
Honda doesn't offer the Civic to new graduates.

Honda offers their grad rebate on the Accord, CR-V, Element...and wait for it, the S2000.

Not exactly 'young grad' nirvana. Well, okay, maybe the S2000, but then again, the S2000 has a $50k Canadian sticker price. Not exactly the type of money most new grads have to put down.

Why does Honda do this? Because they can. And they're pricks.

3 July 2007

Future Scion Product: Subaru Tribeca Rebadge?


According to industry publication Automotive News, Japanese magazine New Model Magazine X recently showed a spy photo of a camouflaged vehicle that had Subaru Tribeca-like proportions and dimensions with what looked like a Scion badge on the grille. The magazine went on to speculate that Toyota would rebadge a Tribeca as a Scion to sell in the US.

Toyota has made a point of denying that it plans any additional models for the Scion brand, and sales have climbed steadily for the past several years (up 10.6% during 2006). But with Toyota owning 8.6% of Subaru's parent company, Fuji Heavy Industries - and Tribeca sales not meeting expectations in its first two years on the market (only selling 18,614 units in 2006) - anything might be possible.

My question is - how exactly would a rebadged Tribeca fit in with the rest of the Scion lineup? Scions generally come from the factory with only two different variables: manual or automatic transmission, and color. The rest of the equipment - appearance, comfort, or performance - is installed by the dealer or the owner. The most expensive 2008 Scion will be the tC coupe, at $17,580 (including destination), while a 2008 Tribeca starts at $30,620 (including destination), or 74% more money. The value proposition just seems very different between the Tribeca - arguably Subaru's flagship - and Scion. Not only that, but Toyota has taken a lot of criticism for the way the 2008 xB has grown in size, weight, and power - but seen its fuel economy decline in an environment of high gas prices. Do they really want to hear about a six cylinder, seven seat crossover from the Scion faithful?

Frankly, I don't see this happening, but if it did, it would be another fascinating case study to see how Toyota manages the marketing message, pricing, and styling of a Scion-ized Tribeca.

2 July 2007

Ford's Future Powertrain Direction


While many auto manufacturers are scratching their heads trying to decide how to meet likely new EPA fuel economy standards in the next few years, Ford thinks it has an answer. They also hope that answer will address the power shortages that some of their engines have relative to the competition (particularly their V8s, in a world where the competition has 400 and 500 horsepower, with the same or better fuel economy of Ford's current engine lineup).

Ford's solution is called Twin-Force, and it means twin turbos coupled with gasoline direct injection. Starting with the 2008 Lincoln MKS sedan, Ford intends to apply twin turbos to I4, V6, and V8 engines over the next several years, and rumor is that engine sizes and power outputs will be:
  • 260 horsepower for the 2.5 liter I4 (likely to appear in the 2009 Fusion sedan)
  • 350-420 horsepower for the 3.5 liter V6 (likely to appear in the Mustang and F150 later in 2009)
  • 400 horsepower for the possible 5.0 liter V8
  • 650 lb-ft of torque for the 6.2 liter V8 (likely to land in the F150 and Super Duty as a diesel alternative).
If the power figures appear as rumored, I'll be very impressed. Even more impressive is that Ford expects fuel efficency to be on par with contemporary diesels of similar size, but expects diesel-like fuel economy, at a lower cost because the expensive emission equipment will not be needed.

Finally, the last part of Ford's powertrain future is called a Powershift gearbox, which is similar in concept to Volkswagen's much-loved twin clutch DSG gearbox. DSGs promise less driveline loss than a conventional torque converter-equipped automatic (so better fuel economy) and faster, more direct shifts.

Giving Ford the benefit of the doubt that they actually can meet these rumored horsepower and fuel economy numbers, plus rolling out a DSG, all they'll need to get in order is a more interesting, engaging styling direction. They have the ideas (the Ford Interceptor would be a nice start), but need to actually implement them.

I was someone who questioned Ford's strategy of going with a twin turbo V6 in the upcoming Lincoln MKS rather than the Volvo-sourced V8 in the original concept car, but if a Twin-Force V6 exceeds the V8's fuel economy, and with potentially 400+ horsepower (versus about 311 for the V8), it's hard to argue with the results. The photo at the top of this post is of the Twin-Force V6 in the Lincoln MKR concept car, which was first shown at the NAIAS in Detroit in January 2007.

I wish them luck. Now let's see these engines and transmissions actually installed in production vehicles.