The Race To Idiotic Conclusions

Source: Sympatico/MSN Autos

Extrapolating that tuning success to fuel economy seems like a logical progression. But don't go all-in with this bet. Looking back 15 years reveals that the fuel mileage evolution has stagnated, even regressed to Neanderthal standards in some cases.

Congratulations to the author of this article on some of the most trite bullshit I've read in quite a while.

To sum up:

• Base level economy cars with no frills and a complete absence of safety features from 1992 had great fuel economy.
• Base level economy cars of today that have frills and safety features not even found in luxury cars back in 1992 have great fuel economy, but not as good as back in 1992.
• A Lamborghini or a Bentley uses a lot of gas... a Yaris, Civic and Mini Cooper do not... OMG LOL !!!!111ONE!!!!
  

What has caused me to make a post about this? Essentially the title and the gist of the article. Yes, they mention that government regulations on safety equipment have been the primary reason for weight gain in cars for the last 15 years, but they bury it in one of the last paragraphs of the article after lambasting vehicles like the Civic for getting too heavy- it's sensationalism and bullshit smear tactics at their worst.

Note to the author- you can't have your cake and eat it too- want all the safety features and solidity of a modern day Civic? Then it's going to weigh more. If that's not your thing, enjoy your 3 cylinder death on wheels Geo Metro, and stop your nonsensical drivel.

Jaguar Pulls A Prince

http://www.wheels.ca/newsFeatures/article/31797

The Jaguar name will be dropped from the marque's cars in a few years, says design chief Ian Callum.

Let us now run down the multitude of idiocies that are in the process of being carried out at Jaguar, and by extension Ford.

• An ongoing onslaught of shitty cars that can't compete in their respective segments either because they're just outright horrible, or even worse for a Jaguar, boring.
• An 'all new' design direction that looks like it has cribbed various elements from Lexus, Infiniti and BMW.
• Floundering public perception and a complete lack of direction.
• Being sold to a 3rd rate 3rd world manufacturer named Tata (admittedly not the fault of Jaguar)
  
• And our latest 3 Stooges move- removing the Jaguar name from the vehicle.

Now the question I'm sure some are asking is- why is it a dumb move?

Well, first of all, you have to understand the place of Jaguar in the current marketplace. It HAS no place. It's a lost child. A wandering soul with no home. It prices cars above the established big dogs in the luxury segment based on past performance and recognition that no longer registers with buyers. It designs cars to look like Mini Me Aston Martins (not bad for any other maker, but it's a JAGUAR damn it). Basically, Jaguar is up Shit River without a paddle. Or a functioning toilet. And now, their brilliant move is to erase their name off of vehicles that are supposed to give them a new place in the market- vehicles that are supposed to remove the stale taste of crap they've been offering over the last 20 years.

Unfortunately, no one will know what just passed them now.

Kudos Jaguar.

Get Your Excessive Speeding In Before Midnight Tonight

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/261778

The new street-racing law goes into effect tomorrow, and OPP Sgt. Cam Woolley predicts "shock and awe" over the tough new provincial legislation.

If a driver is caught going 50 kilometres over the speed limit, police will impound the vehicle for seven days, issue a minimum $2,000 fine and suspend the driver's licence for seven days.

Ahem.

I think I especially like that this law not only presumes guilt without a court case (something you are entitled to under the law- even for a speeding ticket), but that it also is static in terms of the 'amount of the the limit'. Meaning, if you're doing 100 in a 50, you probably need to be given a smack upside the head- but if you're doing 150 in a 100, maybe a big ticket is a better and more fit punishment.

My favorite part of the article is this-

"If a motorist is coming off the 400-series highway at 100 kilometres an hour and hits an 80 zone and then goes through a small town with a 50 zone, they will be 50 over the limit and will get their car impounded," Woolley said.

I like that the OPP is essentially giving a heads up that otherwise innocent drivers can have their cars seized because of idiotic speed changes- which aren't all that uncommon especially on minor highways outside of the Toronto region.

Chalk another one up for the Black Helicopters gang.

Even The Good Moves That Ford Makes Blow Up In Their Faces

Perhaps the salespeople are part of the problem. It seems that nearly twenty percent of Ford’s sales team is trying to sell Ford Five Hundreds to customers instead of the new-for-2008 Taurus. About 60 percent of Ford salespeople are using the correct name some of the time, but still slip in the Five Hundred moniker on occasion.

Source- Winding Road

One can sympathize with the dealers of course, since if you type 'Ford Taurus' into Google image search, you get about 1 picture of the 2008 Taurus for every 23417 pictures of the previous generation Tauri. I think the one major issue with the name change, which all in all I think was a great idea by Ford by the way, was that the refresh of the Taurus nee Five Hundred didn't go nearly far enough to differentiate the models. Yes, there's a slimmed down ass end, and the glitzy chrome front end- but only the legally blind won't look at the new Taurus and not see the Five Hundred with a grille kit. It's probably not helping that every Ford salesperson is probably referencing the Five Hundred in their sales pitch- 'It's just like the Five Hundred but BETTER'. You know, that sort of thing.

Someone needs to punch whoever came up with Five Hundred in the first place right in the balls. Then they need to undertake a more drastic reskinning of the Taurus to send the Five Hundred into the trashbin of history, and make it a rule that it's never to be discussed. Send current Five Hundred owners to Chevy to get their cars serviced.

The Japanese Car The Germans Wish They Made?

See that title? That's the tag line for the new Subaru Impreza. At present time I have no idea if it's being used outside of Canada, but I do know that in the past 2 days I've seen it plastered all over the newspaper and on TV commercials that seem to run in an endless loop of despair.

I mean seriously, this is the best marketing idea that Subaru chose from?

I was unaware that German engineers were scrambling to find ways to engineer a compact car that looks like a bar of soap with a set of late 80's Mercury Sable headlights out front, combined with a floaty suspension that completely disregards the past history of the make (if you believe the car rags). Obviously they've failed if the best they can do is the 3 Series, C-Class and upcoming 1 Series.

As time goes by, I'm finding it very difficult to believe that some of these car companies are run by sane people. It's even more bewildering now that Toyota has a stake in Subie. If you think about it, a 'pseudo-German' ad campaign makes absolutely ZERO sense in the story that is Subaru, regardless of the vehicle. They've just spent the last 10 years reinforcing the 'Outback' style and their AWD system. They went so far as to hire freaking Crocodile Dundee for an ad campaign. I'd wager that most people not into cars might have actually thought that Subaru was an Australian company.

And the solution to all this brand image? To dump it all off and go with 'Japanese but with a German edge'.

It must be too brilliant for my mind to comprehend.

If You Didn't Already Do It, Now's The Time To Really Say Goodbye To Jaguar

Left Lane News is reporting that the following image is a pretty good look at what to expect from the Jaguar XF- a car that basically needs to be a hit for Jaguar to even think about surviving beyond the Ford years.


Umm, excuse me?

I didn't know the market was clamouring for a car that looks like a Lexus ES. Especially in the mid-range lux segment. And if there WAS such a market, Lexus would have probably made their GS look like it.

So what the hell are they smoking? Are they so bereft of ideas over at Ford/Jaguar that THIS is the best they could come up with? Frankly, I don't give a crap about the interior or the power. What Jaguar is CURRENTLY offering has pretty nice interiors and pretty good power- what they all lack however (including the XK, which I think looks okay) is any type of distinctive Jaguar style (and no, the 30 year old perpetually refreshed XJ isn't the answer). The worst part of it all? That this is the car that supposedly 'inspired' what you see above:

Nissan To GT-R Buyers- 'Only We Can Gouge'

Nissan has come up with a fantastic way to win over potential buyers of their upcoming supercar entrant, the GT-R-

According to Jan Thompson, Nissan's vice president of marketing, in an effort to prevent buyers from selling their dealer-purchased Skyline GT-R immediately for a profit, Nissan is considering voiding the Skyline's warranty for the second buyer if the transaction takes place less than one year after the initial purchase.

So to make things very clear- Nissan dealers who will probably be taking thousands of dollars of markup on this car? Perfectly fine. People buying the GT-R to flip it immediately for a profit? Not perfectly fine. And finally, rich guy who gets bored of his cars easily and wants to sell his car? Not perfectly fine either.

Is option #3 a believable situation? Not in most instances. But it IS weird to hear of a car company essentially handcuffing buyers this way. A part of me hopes that the dealers fulfill their inherent greediness and mark up the vehicle so much that no one wants them at all... and are forced to come back down to earth... at which time no one will want to buy a GT-R anyways because of the idiotic warranty rule. Leaving, of course, all the models for me. For $2.99 apiece.

But of course, that's all just a dream.

(Source: Edmunds)

The Pontac G6 Is Being Treated Like A Red Headed Stepchild

Almost one year after handing over the keys to my G6 GT, I decided to take a gander at the 2008 ordering lists to see if GM had decided to rectify any of the numerous shortcomings that the vehicle possessed.

A review of those shortcomings:

• Brutal looking center stack.
• Horrifically bad head unit for the stereo.
• An utter lack of storage space.
• Chrometech wheels standard on GT versions.
• 4 speed automatic in everything short of a GTP.

The vehicle, having been released in 2004, was due for at least a refresh, right? Especially in light of the fact that the Malibu and Aura have upped the ante for GM midsizers.

So what did I see what I visited the 2008 ordering list?

• The same stereo head unit.
• The same center stack.
• The same lack of storage space.
• The same wheel options.
• The same 4 speed automatic in everything short of the GXP (no more GTP).

On the plus side, here ARE the changes made:

• All the airbags are finally standard.
• ABS and traction control are now standard across the board.
• Some new colours replacing some old colours.
• Shitty GT and GXP appearance packages available.
• Minor package changes.

...

I'm in awe of the stupidity at play here. The Aura and the 9-3, two other vehicles based off of the Epsilon architecture, have received generous helping of refinement and improvements. And both sell jack squat. The G6, a true volume seller for GM (albeit mainly to fleet at this point) receives bupkiss. Nothing except some basic safety upgrades. In fact, the EASIEST change, the center stack and the radio issue, has been neglected as well for some reason.

Is GM really trying to kill Pontiac? Is there some exec at the Ren Center who has seen Saw a few too many times?

I Think Nissan May Be Having A Tough Time Selling The Titan And The Sentra

Yes. It looks like only a few vehicles are being offered.
Yes. It's worth only about $200 a month at most for 24 months, meaning about $4800 total in 'cost' to the dealership.
Yes. It's just a clever way of not putting money on the hood.

No. It's not a good idea.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Infiniti Dealers Really Need To Just Shut Up And Sell Their Own Product

Was in an Infiniti dealership today, to get some information on the G35 sedan. It's a vehicle I've had my eye on for a bit now, and I wanted some comprehensive stuff on packages, features, and most importantly, pricing. It's all going fine at first. I appear to have a salesman who knows his vehicle very well, is very polite and courteous, and seems to have a grasp of the competition out there.

And then he started going kooky.

The first issue was that he wouldn't shut up about the most recent Motor Trend mag comparo that gave a victory to the G37 coupe over the BMW 330i coupe (mostly because the BMW was too expensive and needs an oil cooler badly). Umm excuse me, I'm not looking at a G37 coupe- I'm looking at the G35 sedan remember?

The second issue was that he kept bringing up residuals on the G35. The residual on a 2007 G35 Sport on a 48 month lease with no money down works out to be about 21k CDN. His argument was that most G35 sedans from 2003 (4 years ago) retail for around 28k CDN, making the G35 residual a great thing. But... he's wrong. A 4 year old G35 in good condition with about 100,000 kilometers runs, wait for it, about 21-22k. And he wouldn't shut up about this, heaping scorn upon BMW in particular for having such high residual values. I mean, who would want a vehicle that has a lot of value when you want to sell it.... right? Please note my sarcasm there.

Third, he tells me that the 2007 G35 uses the same VQ as the Altima et al. I even gave him a chance to backtrack on this, and he insisted (okay, so this is more me being a know it all bastard, but I digress).

And then this happens.

Him: So one of the other vehicles you're looking at is the Lexus IS?
Me: Yeah, it seems to be the Lexus most closely aligned with what the G35 is.
Him: Oh yes, but it's quite a bit more expensive.
Me: I understand that.
Him: It's also smaller.
Me: I understand that.
Him: Did you know that the IS250 is based on the Toyota Corolla, and the IS350 is based on the Toyota Camry? Why pay a premium for that?
Me: Huh?

He kept insisting this. In a way, I can understand the Camry thing- after all, the ES is on the Camry platform. But the IS? A rear wheel drive car? And bringing the Corolla into the picture? For the exact same vehicle but with a smaller engine?

At this point, I realized I was working with an idiot, and mentioned that I wouldn't want a luxury sedan so closely associated with the 350Z. And he flipped out, saying that the Z was on a completely different platform from the G35. And then I threw the Altima and Maxima out there just for shits and giggles to get him really riled up.

Needless to say, the domestic manufacturers are not alone in employing idiotic sales people.

Further Idiocy From Ford

Courtesy of Bloomberg -

Ford Motor Co. thinks it finally has a chance to crack the small-car market, and not a moment too soon.

This fall Ford will begin selling the second generation of the Focus, a compact that hasn't fared well against some of the stiffest competition in the auto world. The new model, available with an optional interactive speech-recognition system developed with Microsoft Corp. and called Sync, will have to offer young shoppers a clear advantage over a Honda or Toyota, aside from a discounted price.

I swear, my head is about to explode Scanners style if I have to read any more shit like this from retarded automakers.

'A chance to crack the small-car market' ??? How idiotic is that statement? Ford CRACKED the small-car market back in 2000 with the original Ford Focus. It was class leading, it looked great for the time, it hit all the right buttons, it was a quantum leap over the Escort/Contour that it replaced in the lineup. It was an honest to goodness valid and in a lot of cases, BETTER alternative to the Civic, Corolla, Sentra, et al. And they shit the bed by not updating it significantly for almost EIGHT YEARS. Absolutely shit the bed. No ifs, ands, or buts. And now they're touting this new Focus as some sort of 'chance' vehicle for them.

The best part about all this? It's still not an all new Ford Focus! It's still riding the same platform, while the Mazda 3 gets all the latest goodies.

Incredible.

Mr. Lutz, Your Tin Foil Hat Is Ready

From The Detroit News

"This whole thing has nothing to do with energy policy, CO2 or the environment," General Motors Corp. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz told The Detroit News on Friday. "This is purely punitive; the 'big business haters' finally giving us our due for decades of 'colluding with oil companies' and 'forcing the U.S. public to buy big SUVs.'

"Make no mistake: these people hate us and want to inflict pain."

So it's come to this. the Vice Chairman of GM is complaining about black helicopters in the sky and a grand conspiracy against the domestic automakers, all because the government, who are looking after their own asses and ensuring that gas prices stay low and the trees all don't die, have decided to make CAFE have a bit more teeth.

Now, forget the arguments about CAFE, and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing for a minute.

CAFE has been around for a long time. And domestic manufacturers openly flouted the loopholes built into CAFE by spending most of their advertising and new product development dollars on trucks and SUVs, both classes of vehicles not affected by CAFE. They did this ON PURPOSE. There was no ignorance involved. They gave up markets with less margins where imports were making headway in order to take the easy road lined with SUV gold. And now that the farmer has figured out that he let the wolf take care of the chicken coop, they're pleading innocence and naivety. If it wasn't so funny, it would be disgusting.

The big problem in all of this is that the domestic manufacturers are now caught in their own endgame. No one takes them seriously anymore as purveyors of vehicles with good fuel economy, but they'll now be forced to market them. Just as the imports start taking aim at their lucrative truck market, and just as the money tree in their own backyard has started turning up rotten fruit. With less R&D money than the competition to develop new car platforms, and the competition going after the truck jugular, what next?

The obvious answer? Appeal to patriotism.

Chrysler Vice President Jason Vines, in an appearance on Mitch Albom's radio show Friday, lamented that America seems to be the only country where the government doesn't care about and protect its domestic auto industry. He said it was time to "give a damn" about an industry that creates jobs and wealth for hundreds of thousands of people.

Good sir- the government has given a 'damn' too many times in the past already. You dug your graves. Now pull yourselves out of them.