GM 'Tactically Targets' Their Customers- 0% Financing On Trucks

On July 9th, we read this-

GM sales manager Paul Ballew said last week that the auto maker would evaluate its discounts on trucks after a down June and competitors "flailing away" on incentive spending. Toyota was offering 0% financing for 60 months or more than $3,000 in discounts on its new Tundra pickup truck.

Despite the adjustment, GM said it will stick to its incentive strategy and use targeted, tactical deals.

Now, just 2 weeks later, it looks like GM is on the verge of unveiling their 'targeted, tactical deals'- 0% financing over 60 months until the end of August.

Well, that certainly sounds targeted. Targeted to the entire population of truck buyers in North America. And it's certainly a change of tactics from the usual, umm, 0% financing over 60 months, that they usually go with.

So, with about $3600 bucks on the hood of every Silverado and Sierra, GM is going to add 0% financing. Which will put them right around what Toyota is doing- about $4000 on the hood, and 0% financing over 60 months.

Dig a little deeper though, and you'll realize that Toyota is laughing all the way to the bank with this decision from GM. First and most importantly, it means that GM is going to go to war with them on price. That probably doesn't sound too good on the surface, but Toyota at present time has far deeper pockets than GM, so they can afford to take less profit on each truck, while GM can't. Second, the incentives picture is more muddy that it first looks- much of the Tundra incentives are on the hoods of base model stripper pickups- which were overpriced to begin with. So in essence, Toyota has applied big rebates to models that could absorb them, while continuing to sell their top end profit heavy models with far less in terms of customer give back. Lastly, the GMT900s are the bread and butter of the GM lineup- any profit taken off the table of these vehicles is a huge hit to GM- by forcing their hand, Toyota has succeeded, even if it results in a rebound in sales for the trucks.

There were worries before the launch of the Tundra that Toyota was going to price themselves out of the picture with their new truck. Instead, it seems like the spider has set a perfect web- one that they have all the resources in the world to entangle their prey in.

Chrysler Announces Lifetime Powertrain Warranty

Chrysler announced today that it is expanding its existing 3 year/36,000 mile basic limited warranty to a lifetime limited warranty on powertrain components on "most" new Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge vehicles purchased from dealer inventory and delivered on or after July 26, 2007.

I applaud this move - it's likely to get the company noticed by buyers and alleviate many of the quality concerns they may have had. It also can work as an olive branch from Chrysler to its frustrated dealer body, who are still smarting from having sales bank inventory shoved down their throats over the past few years. The company also expects that the better warranty coverage could allow it to reduce its incentive spending, which is among the highest in the industry today.

The details are:

• The warranty covers all parts and labor needed to repair covered powertrain components - engine, transmission, and drive system.
• It applies only to the original owner or retail lessee.
• To continue warranty coverage, the owner must have a powertrain inspection performed by an authorized dealer once every 5 years, within 60 days of each 5 year anniversary of the warranty start date.
• Diesel vehicles and SRT vehicles are excluded from the lifetime powertrain warranty plan.

One key detail isn't clear. Chrysler's press release specifically says that the warranty applies to most new Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge vehicles purchased from dealer inventory. So, what isn't clear is whether the improved warranty coverage also applies to units ordered, and not purchased from dealer stock.

While the move certainly shows a lot of confidence on Chrysler's part in its products, the move could backfire, because there will probably be some die-hards who kept their 2008 Sebring until 2048 and need a part, which may be nearly impossible to find or repair at that point. As long as the powertrains prove to be reliable and durable, and enough original owners sell or trade in their cars before problems arise, it should be a successful program and possibly inspire competitors to improve their coverage. If Chrysler's 2006 and newer powertrains do have problems in coming years, the company is going to be stuck with a huge bill.

The 10 Best Simpsons Vehicles

The Simpsons Movie is almost upon us, and while we all await certain dissatisfaction with the end result of said endeavor, here's a list of some memorable cars from The Simpsons over the years....


The Family Car

Homer, Homer Simpson
He's the greatest guy in history
From the, town of Springfield
He's about to hit a chestnut tree

The Simpsons family-mobile has taken quite a few lumps over the years- being dumped into a lake, falling through ice, or even having Homer use a pickaxe to put speed holes in it. Through it all, it's taken a licking and kept on ticking. And the paint has been splendid since day one. Where is Marge's car? It's a station wagon. That should be explanation enough.



DeLorean- Troy McClure

"Hi there, I'm a DeLorean. You might remember me from such roles as Time Travelling Device in Back To The Future I, II and III, and as the 20 Years Out Of Style Sports Car Owned By Troy McClure in The Simpsons."

Was there ever a more perfect choice for a vehicle for Troy McClure than the DeLorean? Just a brilliant piece of 'casting'.

Mr. Plow- Homer Simpson

Call Mr. Plow, that's my name
The name again, is Mr. Plow

The creme de la creme of snow removal services in Springfield. Able to clear driveways and streets of snow effortlessly, with a jingle that can't be beat...


The Plow King- Barney Gumble


Until Barney shows up with The Plow King. Apparently Mr. Plow isn't immune to gunshots to the tires, and the Plow King has the services of Linda Ronstadt.


Canyonero

Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
[Krusty:] Hey Hey

The Federal Highway comission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

Canyonero!

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! (Yah!)

Drive Canyonero!

Woah Canyonero!

Woah!

Rolls Royce (various)- Mr. Burns

Would you expect anything else for the richest man in Springfield? Notable for the one time when Mr. Burns attempted to drive on his own-

I thought, uh, I thought I'd chauffeur myself this evening. yes, that's what I thought. How difficult could it be? I'm sure the manual will indicate which level is the velocitator and which the decleratrix, hmm?

Mercedes SL- Baron von Wortzenberger

Ja, ja, ja, mach schnell mit der art things, huh? I must get back to Dancecentrum in Stuttgart in time to see Kraftwerk. Hey, und dummkopf! Watch out for the CD changer in my trunk eh? Idiot.

Another inspired car choice.

The Bus- Otto Mann

The jump off point for a ton of episodes, and the scene of many a great comedic moment, including the infamous apple/banana race. Just watch out for those pesky gremlins.

Hail to the bus driver man indeed.


The Tractor- Groundskeeper Willie

Well duh. How else would he groundskeep?

The Homer

A perfect example of why the focus group isn't always right. What did Homer want for his car? Separated children pods, a little ball on the aerial, tail fins, a big motor, huge cupholders, shag carpeting, a Rolls grille, and a horn that played the Cucaracha. The tagline? Powerful like a gorilla, yet soft and yielding like a Nerf ball...it's amazing that it didn't sell like hotcakes. Oh yeah, the sticker was $82,000. On the plus side, the failure led to the bankruptcy of Herb Powell, which ultimately led to him coming back to Homer for money help and a reappearance of the drinking bird in a later episode. So it was all worth it.

Any I've missed?
...

Thanks to the Simpsons Archive for the quotes.

You'll Have 273 Reasons To Check Out The New Accord When It Drops

SuperHonda.com has some interesting tidbits of information regarding the next generation Honda Accord sedan and coupe-

• The sedan will be available on September 12th, with the coupe entering showrooms later in the month.
• There will be two 4 cylinder models in the lineup, with the LX getting a 180 HP 4 banger, while the uplevel EX edition will get, presumably, the 200 HP variant also found in the current TSX.
  
• The big brother V6 will get an appreciable increase over the current edition engine, coming in a 273 horsepower.
• The car is big enough to be classified as a full size sedan.

What to make of all of this?

Well first, that is one impressive lineup of engines- the base I4 in the Accord lineup was always the smoothest out of the mainstream offerings, and the power increase to put it ahead of basically everyone out there is a welcome addition. Adding in the 200 HP variant is a fantastic move- they'll be able to keep the fuel economy numbers looking good for those sorts of buyers, while offering more power- and that should be a winning combination, and something not found in other brands right now. Of course, the biggest news is the new V6, which if those power numbers hold true, will lead the class in power. It's interesting seeing the progression in engine power for the midsize segment at this point though- the Altima blew the doors off of everyone in 2002, and since then, everyone has only equaled or just barely surpassed it. I think it's probably because any more power would encroach on the entry level luxury brands of most of these companies.

The fullsize designation is also a bit eyebrow raising- the traditionally smaller Accord seems to be moving up in the world.

All in all, the new Accord is looking like it will keep going from where the last one left off.

Nobody Wants to Buy Chrysler's Debt

Chrysler Group, which has been acquired by Cerberus Capital Management, is trying to tap debt markets for $20 billion to fund the new company's automotive operations and its finance unit after the transaction between Cerberus and DaimlerChrysler closes on August 3. The company's bankers have been trying to convince investors to purchase $12 billion in loans for the auto business and $8 billion for Chrysler Financial.

So far, the $8 billion loan sale for Chrysler Financial appears to be on track to be sold by the end of this week, but today, the bankers decided to postpone the sale of the $12 billion loan sale for the auto business due to a lack of buyer interest. Instead, they will fund the bulk of that debt - $10 billion - from their own pockets. If these banks (J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley) don't eventually find buyers for the loans, and if Chrysler has trouble repaying them, these banks would bear the first losses (investors who bought the rest of the loans would be given priority over Chrysler's assets if the company was in default).

Chrysler isn't the only auto company experiencing this problem. GM's sale of its Allison Transmission unit ran into similar financing problems this week. Wall Street firms put off a $3.1 billion sale of loans that would have funded the buyout of Allison by private-equity firms. Like the Chrysler-Cerberus transaction, the Allison sale is likely to still proceed.

The root of the problem is that debt investors have gotten nervous lately about the huge amounts of debt being underwritten to fund buyouts. On top of that, bonds tied to the subprime mortgage debt market have suffered in the past several months, making debt financing - a favorite tool for both the auto industry and for private equity - more difficult to use.

In the Chrysler and Allison situations, the lack of an interested market for the debt offerings probably won't be a deal-killer, but this development in the debt market may not be welcome news for companies that are in a compromised state and need access to as much capital as they can get to fund their restructurings.

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.

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?

!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.

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.

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.

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.